dfi.ttfayw
historic resource study
Clemson University
3 1604 003 168 129
EUBIX DOCUMENTS
DEPOSITORY ITEM
NOV 14 1985
CLEMSON
DELAWARE WATER GAP
SLATEFORD FARM
NATIONAL RECREATION AREA / PENNSYLVANIA
FE3ERAL
PUEkJCATtQM
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/historicresource85brown
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY
SLATEFORD FARM
DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
PENNSYLVANIA
Prepared by
Sharon A. Brown
September 1985
U.S. Department of the Interior/National Park Service
Table of Contents
Preface v
Introduction ix
Chapter One 1
THE ORIGINS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY AND UPPER MOUNT
BETHEL TOWNSHIP 1
Geology and Geography 1
American Indian Inhabitants 2
The Penn Proprietors 3
Chapter Two 11
PEOPLE OF SLATEFORD FARM 11
The Sons of William and Hannah Penn 11
The Province's Surveyor General 13
A Quaker Merchant 14
Two Sisters and Two Brothers 16
"Yeoman" Samuel Pipher 19
Pipher Land Divided - Mary, Frederick, Peter 30
Frederick's Western Portion 34
Peter's Central Section 38
Slaters and Tenants 47
Chapter Three 55
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES 55
German Farming Characteristics 55
Farm Building Characteristics 64
Agricultural Development - 18th to 20th Centuries 71
Labor - Black Slavery and White Servitude 79
Tenancy 84
Lifestyle of Farming Families 85
Chapter Four 91
SLATE IN NORTHAMPTON COUNTY 91
Efforts of James Madison Porter 92
Porter and Frederick Pipher 101
Slate Quarrying on Slateford Farm 104
Technology of Slate 112
Summary 118
Recommendations for Further Research 121
Repositories Visited During Research 123
Persons Consulted During Research 124
in
Chain of Title for Slateford Farm: 1753 to 1966 126
Abbreviated Pipher Family Tree 128
Historical Base Maps 129
1. Historic Boundary -1753 129
2. Historic Boundary -1753 & 1812 131
3. 1865 Slateford Farm 132
4. 1985 Slateford Farm - Existing Conditions 134
Annotations for Historical Base Map 4 135
5. Historic Quarries 141
List of Appendixes 142
Appendixes 144
List of Illustrations 231
Illustrations 234
Annotated Bibliography 281
National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form 295
IV
PREFACE
This historic resource study has been prepared to satisfy the
research needs as stated in the task directive approved by Mid-Atlantic
Regional Director James W. Coleman Jr. on September 16, 1983,
concerning Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area under Package
No. III. Data contained in this report will be used in interpretation,
preservation/restoration and management needs at the site.
The study focuses on the history of a piece of property located
south of Blue Mountain below the Delaware Water Gap. Slateford Farm
began as a 391 1/4-acre tract, sold by the sons of William Penn after it
was taken from the local Delaware Indians, and evolved into a 169.38-acre
tract sold to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers more than 200 years
later. This study includes information concerning the farm's various
owners, a history of Northampton County and Upper Mount Bethel
Township as it pertains to the farm, and a discussion of German farming
techniques and building characteristics as exemplified by Northampton
County German settlers. Also included is the scant data available on
quarrying near Slateford, Pennsylvania, and a brief section of slate
quarrying techniques in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Most of the research was conducted during field trips to
Pennsylvania in August and September 1984. Additional material was
gathered during a trip to the National Archives in February 1985 and to
New York City and Philadelphia in April and May 1985.
Several people have assisted in preparing this report. My thanks go
to Warren Bielenberg, chief of visitor services and resource management,
and Ray Fauber, interpretive specialist, both at Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area. Special thanks goes to Dr. James S. Yolton,
associate professor of Geology at Upsala College in East Orange, New
Jersey, for generously sharing his knowledge about quarries located near
Slateford Farm. The librarians and staff at the Northampton County
Government Center and the Henry F. Marx Local History and Genealogy
Collection at the Easton Public Library, both in Easton, Pennsylvania,
and at Spruance Library, The Bucks County Historical Society in
Doylestown, Pennsylvania, were all helpful and generous with their time.
Jane S. Moyer of the Northampton County Historical and Genealogical
Society in Easton and Linda Stanley of the Historical Society of
Pennsylvania in Philadelphia provided extra help in obtaining genealogical
and biographical information on eighteenth century Slateford Farm owners.
David F. Fritz, historian on the Midwest/Rocky Mountain Team,
Denver Service Center, did some of the preliminary work on this
document. He scoped the project, wrote the task directive, and provided
leads to sources that this author followed. David Fritz also traced deeds
at the courthouse in Easton and his efforts at this task are much
appreciated. Portions of Fritz's writings on the Pipher family were
utilized in this report.
A descendant of Samuel and Christina Pipher, Mildred Bartow
McMillen, and her husband E. Lee graciously shared their memories of her
family. Louis and Lottie Cyr's daughter, Charlotte Cyr Jewell, not only
shared memories but photographs as well. Final thanks goes to Nancy
Arwood for typing the manuscript, Helen Starr for drawing the maps, and
to Dr. Ronald W. Johnson for his guidance in the research and writing.
Sharon A. Brown
June 1985
VI
Acknowledgements: A few words of thanks and acknowledgement are in
order. First of all, the staff at Delaware Water Gap National Recreation
Area were most helpful and generous with their time in assisting me to
pursue research materials. These people included A. Amos Hawkins, the
superintendent; Warren Bielenberg, his chief of visitor services; and Ray
Fauber, his interpreter of historic resources. Ray Fauber not only
showed me around Slateford Farm on a rainy day, but he also put me in
contact with a number of people including John H. Lee, the general
manager of the Structural Slate Company of Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania, who
in turn was most gracious in devoting half a day of his time to giving the
writer a guided tour of both the company facilities as well as several slate
quarries. Ray Fauber also made me aware of other leads on the subject
of slate quarrying, such as the Slate Belt Museum at Mount Bethel and
other sources of information, including the park files.
I also wish to thank Ron Robbins, the archivist at Skillman Library,
Lafayette College in Easton, for his zealous search for a considerable file
of nineteenth century company slate quarrying records for Northampton
County. The quest, even though unsuccessful, was vigorously
prosecuted. These records had been listed in Harrier's Guide to Archives
in 1961. Other members of the library staff at Skillman were equally
helpful to the writer in gathering secondary source material. Similarly,
Jane S. Moyer, librarian for the Easton Public Library, and other
members of her staff, were most generous in the rendering of assistance
in providing materials both from their special collections in the History
Room, as in the main library generally. Bruce Drinkhouse, president of
the Northampton County Historical and Genealogical Society, was also very
kind in the donation of his expertise in finding materials for me and
giving added leads on people and places to consult.
David F. Fritz
November 1983
VII
INTRODUCTION
The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area was authorized by
Congress for inclusion in the National Park System by P.L. 89-158 (79
Stat. 612) on September 1, 1965. Slateford Farm is one mile below the
scenic Delaware Water Gap, considered in the last century to be a natural
wonder, and south of Kittatinny Mountain (Blue Mountain). The tract
containing the core farm totals 169.38 acres and was purchased in 1966.
The origins of the farm can be traced to the Walking Purchase of
1737, wherein Richard and Thomas Penn, sons of the province's founder,
acquired a large tract of land from the Delaware Indians under what has
been considered, historically, suspect circumstances. The Penns sold 391
1/4 acres to the province's surveyor general in 1753, and this property
remained intact under several owners until 1812. In that year the farm's
owner, Samuel Pipher, split the property into three sections among three
of his children at his death. The central section of the farm, containing
the home built by Samuel's son Peter, remained in Pipher family hands
until 1868. In the last 100 years the property has been both quarried by
a slate company and farmed by tenant inhabitants. The cultural
resources at Slateford Farm, as represented in the land itself, in the
extant farm buildings, and in the slate quarry, can be viewed in the
context of ethnic, cultural and industrial development in southeastern
Pennsylvania, and in the continuum represented by the nearly 200 years
of farming and slating practices which occurred on the land.
No historical name for the farm was found in the primary source
materials. The National Park Service named the tract "Slateford Farm"
out of respect for local history. The name Laurel Hill has, on occasion,
been applied to the farm. In this text, both Slateford Farm and Pipher
Farm are used to refer to the property.
IX
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1. Southeastern Pennsylvania Physiographic Regions
2. Southeastern Pennsylvania Soil Parent Materials
3. The Slate Regions of Pennsylvania
4. Slate Belts - Delaware Water Gap; West Side
5. Map of Pennsylvania by William Scull 1770
6. Scull Map Detail - Northampton County
7. Old Northampton County 1776
8. History Map of the Forks of the Delaware - Chidsey, 1938
9. Map of the State of Pennsylvania by Reading Howell 1790
10. Map of Northampton & Lehigh Counties, Pa. - 1830 by H . S. Tanner
11. Atlas of Northampton County - Upper Mount Bethel Township by D.
G. Beers, 1874
12. Nicholas Scull Survey of Northampton County Property , 1753
13. Distribution of Pennsylvania Germans
14. 1930s view of Slateford Farm. Charlotte Cyr Jewell Collection.
15. Louis Cyr on Slateford Farm house porch early 1930s. Charlotte Cyr
Jewell Collection.
16. Lower Cyr Farm, 1930s. Charlotte Cyr Jewell Collection.
17. Making Hay at Slateford, 1936. Charlotte Cyr Jewell Collection.
18. View Southeast from Slateford Farm, August 1936. Charlotte Cyr
Jewell Collection.
19. Haying, Slateford Farm 1940s. Charlotte Cyr Jewell Collection.
20. Haying, Slateford Farm 1940s. Charlotte Cyr Jewell Collection.
21. Louis Cyr Raking Hay, Slateford Farm 1948. Charlotte Cyr Jewell
Collection.
22. Woodshed, Slateford Farm circa 1940-1950. Charlotte Cyr Jewell
Collection .
23. Cutting Hay, Slateford Farm circa 1940-1950. Charlotte Cyr Jewel
Collection.
24. Slateford Farm early 1950s. Charlotte Cyr Jewell Collection.
XI
CHAPTER ONE
THE ORIGINS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY AND UPPER
MOUNT BETHEL TOWNSHIP
Geology and Geography
Slateford Farm's history is linked to the geologic, American Indian
and colonial history which preceded Samuel Pipher's purchase of the
property in 1790. Geologic factors and human activity determined how
and when the land was to be used. These influences need to be
examined for their impact upon Slateford Farm.
Southeast Pennsylvania possesses three physiographic regions. The
limestone valley, the slate terrace and Blue Mountain, also known as
Kittatinny Mountain, run from the southwest to the northeast. The
altitude ranges from 350 feet in the limestone valley to 1,665 on Blue
Mountain. Major streams cross the area in a southeastward direction and
flow through gaps in the Blue Mountain. Near Slateford Farm the
Delaware River flows through Delaware Water Gap, but Totts Gap and Fox
Gap are dry.
An abrupt slope which rises to the top of Blue Mountain serves as
the northern boundary of the slate belt. North of the southern edge of
this slope there is no chance of quarrying slate in an economical way.
Too much talus and debris from the mountain forms a thick cover over
the slate, therefore all quarrying at Slateford Farm took place south of
this slope. Blue Mountain is a mile wide at its base, a few hundred feet
wide at the crest, and its ridge generally runs in an east-northeast
direction. Very few roads cross the mountain and very little farming can
1
occur because of the sandy soil, lack of water and large talus blocks.
1. Charles H. Behre Jr., Slate in Pennsylvania (Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania: The Telegraph Press, 1933), pp. 129-130; ,
Slate m Northampton County Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
The Telegraph Press, 1927), p. 8. Talus is rock debris found at the
base of a slope or cliff.
The slate terrace is characterized by sandy soil and a fairly even
topped, level altitude, underlain by slate and shale. Geologist Charles
Behre Jr.'s assessment of this region in 1933 has direct bearing upon the
quality of soil at Slateford Farm:
This is a relatively thinly settled region. The sandy soil
is poor in plant foods, and the commonly steep slopes, though
not very rugged, are yet sufficiently abrupt to discourage
cultivation except near the crests of the wider divides. Hence
the farms are not the large and prosperous ones that
characterize the limestone district to the south, and in general
the nearer to Blue Mountain, the thinner the population, the
poorer the homes, the smaller the land plots under cultivation-,
and the more widely spaced and less well maintained the roads.
The limestone valley lies to the southeast and has gentle slopes and
sluggish streams in contrast to the "steep-walled, rapidly flowing creeks
of the slate terrace." Because limestone underlies the area it is
depressed and lower in altitude than the slate belt. The area also has
sink-holes and pits formed by the solution of the limestone by water.
The richest farming region of Northampton County lies within this
limestone valley. Pennsylvania's reputation as an agricultural giant was
based on the farming occurring not only in Northampton, but in Lehigh
3
and Berks counties as well, all located in the limestone belt. (See
illustrations 1 and 2 for Pennsylvania physiology and soil patterns.)
American Indian Inhabitants
The Delaware inhabited these regions at the time of European
discovery. This name is given to the descendants of the Indians who
occupied the Delaware River valley and who were related both
2. Behre, Pennsylvania, p. 130.
3. Ibid., pp. 131-132; Behre, Northampton, p. 6. For a further
description of the region's physiography see: E. Gordon Alderfer,
Northampton Heritage (Easton, Pennsylvania: The Northampton County
Historical and Genealogical Society, 1953), pp. 1-9.
culturally and linguistically. They spoke dialects of two Eastern
Algonquian languages--Munsee and Unami. These Indians never formed a
single political unit but the name Delaware, which at first referred only
to Indians in the middle Delaware Valley, was then applied to all these
Indians even after they left the region, ever moving west, under
pressure from white settlement. Those who spoke Munsee eventually
emigrated northwestward into New York, Wisconsin and Ontario, Canada.
4
Those speaking Unami eventually moved into Oklahoma.
North of the Delaware Water Gap lived the Minisink who spoke
Munsee, while the Lenape (also called Lenni-Lenape), who spoke Unami,
lived south of the gap on the west side. The Indians used the region as
a hunting and fishing region. Relations between the Delaware and the
Europeans remained more peaceful along the Delaware River than they did
along the Hudson River. The continual sale of Indian land in the
eighteenth century, however, eventually led to both warfare and removal
of the Delaware.
The Penn Proprietors
William Penn came to America in September 1682 to take possession of
the province of Pennsylvania. The property was a grant from King
Charles II on March 4, 1681, as a debt payment to Penn's father, Admiral
Sir William Penn. Not only Quakers followed Penn to the new land, but
so did many Protestant Germans of the Palatine (a district west of the
Rhine River in southwest Germany) who sought protection under Penn's
4. Ives Goddard, "Delaware," Bruce G. Trigger, vol. ed., vol. 15:
Northeast, William C. Sturtevant, gen. ed . , Handbook of North American
Indians (Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1978), p. 213. The word
Delaware is English, derived from Sir Thomas West, Lord de la Warr, the
first governor of Virginia, p. 235.
5. Ibid., pp. 215, 221, 236-237. Goddard's article contains much
information on the language, culture, social organization, clothing, rituals
and history of the Delaware.
doctrine of religious tolerance. William Penn also had a policy of
maintaining peace with the Indians by purchasing lands before white
settlement took place. Private purchases of property without proprietary
permission were outlawed in 1700. There were also instances of
settlements being restricted or stopped if placed on Indian land, and of
squatters being evicted from Indian property.
Much of the tradition concerning Penn's personal interactions and his
peaceful policies may be overly stressed, but the central fact remains that
William Penn was a friend to the Indians in the province. He did try to
protect them from transgressions of trade and alcohol. It was not until
after William Penn's death that his policies of fairness were undermined by
his descendents.
Penn's American lands were passed on to his sons by his second wife
Hannah as executrix after his death in 1718. Hannah's rights were
contested, however, and not until 1727, after both she and the youngest
son Dennis had died, did the remaining three sons inherit the property.
The oldest, John, received half the proprietorship while Thomas and
Richard received a quarter each. After John's death in 1746 his half of
the propery went to Thomas. Penn's sons inherited the province's three
original counties — Bucks, Chester and Philadelphia. The present county
of Northampton was created from Bucks in 1752 and was located entirely
o
within the original Penn land grant of 1681.
6. "William Penn," [by Rayner W. Kelsey], in Dumas Malone, ed . ,
Dictionary of American Biography vol. VII, (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1934), pp. 434-435; James T. Lemon The Best Poor
Man's Country A Geographical Study of Early Southeastern Pennsylvania,
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1972) p. 60.
7. "William Penn," in D. A. B. , VI I : 435 .
8. "Thomas Penn," [by Harry J. Carman], in D. A. B . , VI I :432;
A[ndrew] D[wight] Chidsey Jr., The Penn Patents m the Forks of the
Delaware (Easton, Pennsylvania: The Northampton County Historical and
Genealogical Society, 1937), pp. 13, 17.
Thomas and Richard Penn, as proprietors of the province, failed to
treat the Indians as well as their father had, and one of their most
controversial dealings was the Walking Purchase of 1737 in the Forks of
the Delaware (junction of the Delaware and Lehigh rivers at Easton), by
which the Penns acquired most of what became Northampton County.
Pennsylvania experienced the terrors of frontier warfare only after the
Indians were betrayed by William Penn's sons.
In 1728 the Penns sold William Allen (chief justice of the province
from 1750 to 1774) and other settlers around 10,000 acres of land "in
some unsettled part of the Province." This was land which had not been
purchased from the Delaware. Thomas Penn wanted to strengthen claims
to this property and a copy of a deed, supposedly executed in 1686, was
produced in 1737, which gave the land to William Penn. According to the
deed, the granted property extended from a point above Trenton, west to
Wrightstown in Bucks County, northwest and paralleling the Delaware
River for a distance which could be walked in a day and a half, and
finally, east to the river, following a line which was not defined in the
deed.
Thomas Penn coerced the Delaware to agree to the 1686 deed's terms
and plans were made to hold the walk. The Delaware expected a leisurely
walk which would cover no more than 40 miles and not extend beyond the
Lehigh River. But experienced walkers were chosen, trees were blazed
for miles beyond the Lehigh Gap to ensure straight travel, and at sunrise
on September 19, 1737, the walk began.
Horsemen with provisions, spectators on foot, a party of Delaware,
and three walkers started out on a pace which exhausted everyone by the
end of the day. Two of the walkers dropped out, but the third, Edward
Marshall, continued until noon the next day having camped for the night
on the north side of Blue Mountain. Marshall established the northwest
corner boundary 60 miles from the start. The running of the line to the
Delaware also involved deceit, for instead of striking the river at the
nearest point, Benjamin Eastman, the surveyor general, ran the line at a
right angle. Thus were claimed the rich hunting grounds of the
9
Minisink.
The end result of the Walking Purchase was warfare. The Delaware
refused to give up their lands and finally did so after being forced to in
1742 by the Pennsylvania Proprietaries and the Iroquois Confederacy, who
held sovereignty over the region's tribes. No effort was made to pacify
the Delaware and their discontent was expressed during the French and
Indian War between 1755 and 1758 and the Pontiac uprising in 1763 and
1764. Settlement in the valley adjacent to Blue Mountain was effectively
10
halted for a number of years.
By such means was Northampton County taken from the Delaware and
opened for settlement. One local historian stated that previous to the
Walking Purchase, in 1730, surveyor Nicholas Scull headed an expedition
into the Minisink territory to "survey the land and dispossess those who
had previously purchased of the Indians." Scull and his deputy
evidently passed through the Delaware Water Gap on an Indian trail and
11
met Nicholas Depui, one of the first settlers in Monroe County.
One of the oldest settled portions of Northampton County was Upper
Mount Bethel Township. A group of 30 Ulster-Scot families founded the
Hunter Settlement in 1730 in East Allen Township, but other early settlers
included three brothers who emigrated from France before 1730, landed in
9. William J. Heller, History of Northampton County and the Grand
Valley of the Lehigh, 2 vols. (Boston: The American Historical Society,
1920), I: 47-48; "William Penn," in D. A. B . , VI 1:433; Federal Writers'
Project, Northampton County Guide Works Projects Administration,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: Times
Publishing Co., 1939), pp. 23-24.
10. Heller, History, I: 49-50; Guide, p. 24; Lemon, The Best Poor Man's
Country, p. 60.
11. L. W. Brodhead, The Delaware Water Gap Its Scenery, Its Legends
and Early History (Philadelphia: Sherman & Co., Printers, 1870), pp.
226-228.
Philadelphia, and made their way up the Delaware River searching for a
new home. Peter, Charles and Abraham LaBar reached the south side of
Blue Mountain where they built a log cabin and settled one half mile
southwest of Slateford, Pennsylvania (on property owned in 1877 by
Samuel Pipher). The LaBars cleared land on their tract, enjoyed good
relations with the Delaware, and met Nicholas Depui, who was settled at
Shawanese, now Shawnee. Two of the brothers eventually moved north of
Blue Mountain where they settled permanently, but Charles remained on
12
the old homestead.
After the Penns acquired the territory other settlers moved into the
area, including Germans who bought their property from William Allen.
The Penns also sold about 90,000 acres to "favored individuals, many of
13
whom never saw the land they purchased." Thomas Penn selected
choice sites for his personal use, including a "Thousand Acre Tract" at
the junction of the Delaware and Lehigh rivers. He wanted a town to be
14
built to his memory and a survey was started in May 1750.
The new town was to be called Easton, in honor of Thomas Penn's
bride Juliana Fermor, whose father's county seat back in England was
named Easton-Neston in Northamptonshire. Two years later, on March
11, 1752, Northampton County was incorporated, formed from Bucks
County, and Thomas Penn saw to it that Easton became the county seat.
Nicholas Scull, the province's surveyor general, laid out the town in May
1752. The new county contained 5,321 square miles, had a population of
12. Heller, History, II: 466-467; Capt. F. Ellis, History of Northampton
County, Pennsylvania with Illustrations Descriptive of jts Scenery,
(Philadelphia: n.p., 1877) p. 251; Eileen T. Kline, Walter C. Emery,
Edith May Emery, "An Early History of the Portland Area," Slate Belt
Bicentennial Heritage Albert M. Toth, coordinator (n.p., n.p., [1975]),
pp. 211, 213-214.
13. Kline, Emery, Emery, "Early History," p. 212; Chidsey, Penn
Patents, p. 22.
14. Guide, p. 25; A[ndrew] D[wight] Chidsey Jr., A Frontier Village
Pre- Revolutionary Easton (Easton, Pennsylvania: The Northampton
County Historical and Genealogical Society, 1940), pp. 9-11.
4,000, and included the previously designated townships of Smithfield,
Milford, Upper and Lower Saucon, Macungie, Bethlehem, Mount Bethel,
Allen, Williams and a northeastern section of wilderness. Portions of the
county were later taken to form sections of Northumberland, Wayne,
Schuylkill, Lehigh, Monroe and Carbon counties. Northampton was
15
reduced to 370 square miles containing 230,000 acres of land. Upper
Mount Bethel township was incorporated in 1787, formed out of the
original Mount Bethel Township established by Bucks County in 1747.
1 C.
The early Ulster-Scots probably chose the biblical name. (See
illustrations 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 for Northampton County and Pennsylvania
maps 1770-1790.)
During the Revolutionary War Northampton County supplied troops
and supplies to General George Washington. The county received a quota
of 346 men and recruiting occurred so quickly that Northampton troops
joined Washington in 1776 on Long Island. Wounded soldiers were treated
in Easton, Bethlehem, and Nazareth, and when Washington's army
retreated across New Jersey and into Pennsylvania supplies were kept at
Bethlehem. The Liberty Bell was kept overnight in Bethlehem before
being taken to Allentown where it was kept hidden beneath the Zion
17
Reformed Church's floor.
15. Andrew Dwight Chidsey Jr., "Easton and Northampton County Under
the Penns," Easton, Pennsylvania, 1936, unpublished typescript; Heller,
History, I: 81; Guide, p. 25. Henry Forster Marx, "Northampton
County, evolution of townships, bibliography of tax and assessment lists
1762-1812," 1936, unpublished typescript. The establishment of
Northampton County was a political move by Thomas and John Penn. The
ever-increasing German population cooperated with the Quakers politically
to oppose proprietary interests. The Penns' response was to break this
political alliance by establishing the new county which contained many of
the German communities. Heller, History, I: 82; Marx, "Northampton,"
p. 2.
16. Alderfer, Northampton, p. 302.
17. William W. Carling, "Early Northampton County," Historical Bulletin
of the Northampton County Historical and Genealogical Society no. 1 (May
1946): 4.
The history of Upper Mount Bethel Township and Northampton
County is of profound importance to that of Slateford Farm. The legacy
of William Penn and his descendants helped shape the character of the
county, which in turn influenced the initial establishment of the farm
property. People who determined the course of provincial settlement were
also instrumental in Slateford Farm's establishment, for the names of
Richard Penn, Thomas Penn, Nicholas Scull and descendants of the LaBar
brothers will mesh with those of the Pipher family.
CHAPTER TWO
PEOPLE OF SLATEFORD FARM
Slateford Farm was owned, inhabited, farmed and quarried for more
than 200 years. Provincial proprietors, absentee landlords and yeoman
farmers all contributed to the farm's development and history. For some,
the property was nothing more than a financial investment while for
others a home. The farm's acreage was owned by both famous
Pennsylvanians and by farmers who were known only to their families,
friends and neighbors. Slateford Farm's history, made by the people
associated with it, is unique, yet representative of American agriculture
and industry.
The Sons of William and Hannah Penn
Thomas and Richard Penn were the sons of the founder of the
province of Pennsylvania. After William Penn's death they inherited his
lands in the New World and proceeded to change the face of the colony.
After Thomas Penn authorized the Walking Purchase of 1737 the Delaware
Indians were forced out of the Delaware Water Gap area and the region
was thrown open for settlement. The Penns proceeded to establish
Northampton County for political reasons and to sell land to favored
individuals. One of these parcels of land later became the Slateford
Farm.
Of the three Penn sons, only Thomas spent any amount of time in
the province. He came to Pennsylvania in 1732 and managed proprietary
affairs for nine years. Thomas returned to England in 1741 expecting to
return to the New World but he was unable to do so. He conducted all
subsequent dealings with Pennsylvania officials through correspondence.
John Penn arrived with his brother in the province in 1732 but had to
return to England after only a few months. It was during this period
that the two brothers visited the future site of Easton. After John's
death in 1746 Thomas became the principal proprietor and his attitude
11
toward the province was that of an estate manager who wished large
financial returns. He did not possess his father's paternalistic feelings
or philanthropic spirit towards Pennsylvania. When Thomas and Richard
left the Society of Friends to join the Church of England they alienated
many provincial leaders. Richard himself lived in England and never
came to Pennsylvania.
On June 1, 1753, Thomas and Richard Penn, as "True and absolute
Proprietaries and Governors in Chief of the Province of Pennsylvania"
sold a "certain Tract of Land, situate on the North Branch of Delaware
River in the County of Northampton" to Nicholas Scull, the province's
surveyor general. (See appendix I for copy of the patent.) The
description of the property was:
Beginning at as marked Chestnut Oak standing on the Bank of
the said River thence by vacant Land the four Courses [?]
Distances next following viz south fifty five Degrees West three
hundred and fifty two Perches to a marked Chestnut Oak South
seventy Degrees West seventy eight Perches to a Stone South
East one hundred and ninety seven Perches to a Stone and
North sixty degrees East three hundred and ten Perches to a
marked Chestnut tree standing on the Bank of the said River
thence up the same one the several Courses thereof two
hundred and twenty seven perches to the place of Beginning
Containing three hundred and ninety one Acres and one
Quarter of an Acre and the usual Allowance of six Acres per
Cont [?] for Roads and Highways.
1. Hiram H. Shenk, ed., Encyclopedia of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg
Pennsylvania. National Historical Association, Inc., 1932), p. 391
Wayland Fuller Dunaway, A History of Pennsylvania (New York
Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1935), pp. 104-105; Heller, History, I, pp. 36-37
Malone, D.A.B., VI 1 : 432 .
2. Deed Book A-17, pp. 508-509, recorded August 22, 1753,
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Division of Land
Records, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (PHMC).
12
The Province's Surveyor General
Nicholas Scull paid sixty pounds, twelve shillings and ten pence
"lawful Money of Pennsylvania" for the property. He also had to pay
yearly on March 1 to the Penns, their heirs or successors in Easton, one
half penny sterling for every acre or "Value thereof in Coin Current
according as the Exchange shall then be between our said Province and
the City of London. ..." In cases of nonpayment within 90 days after
the due date of March 1, the Penns could "re-enter" the granted land to
hold it until the "Quit-Rent and all Arrears" were paid. The property
3
was surveyed on June 7 and Scull paid the costs involved. (See
illustration 12 for 1753 survey and historical base map 1 for 1753
boundary. )
Scull was a notable person in the province. He was born near
Philadelphia in 1687 and served as an apprentice to Thomas Holmes, who
was the colony's first surveyor general. Benjamin Franklin described
Scull as one "who loves books and sometimes makes verse." Scull's work
as surveyor carried him into the Pennsylvania wilderness where he
utilized his knowledge of Indian dialects. In 1730 he visited the Delaware
Water Gap area to adjust land titles in the Minisink Valley. Scull was
also present at the 1737 Walking Purchase and participated by surveying
the line. In 1741 Scull was sent to "look after the state of things in the
Smithfields. " The principal settlers had petitioned the governor to send
them help against the Delaware Indian retaliations after the Walking
Purchase. Scull was sent to talk with the Indians. He warned them that
if they did not submit, their enemies, the Six Nations, would be called in
to exterminate them. The Indians were "alarmed, and promised to do
better." On June 14, 1748, Scull was appointed surveyor general of the
province, an office he held until close to his death in 1761. It was in his
4
capacity as surveyor general that Scull laid out the town of Easton.
3. Ibid., pp. 509-510; Survey Book, A-8, p. 29, PHMC.
4. John Clement, "A Sketch of William Biddle and Thomas Biddle," The
Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography ( PMHB) 14,
(1890):378-380; A. B. Burrell, Reminiscences of George LaBar the
13
A Quaker Merchant
Nicholas Scull held onto the property for only 13 months and it is
doubtful that he made any kind of improvement on it. He sold it on July
4, 1754, to Amos Strettell of Philadelphia, who was a wealthy landowner
and merchant. Strettell was born in England, was a Quaker, and
immigrated to Philadelphia with his parents, Robert and Philotesia, and
his two sisters Ann and Frances. Another brother, John, stayed in
England and became a merchant in London. Notice was given to the
Quaker community November 11, 1736, that the Strettell family would be
emigrating, and they did so in 1736 or 1737.
Robert Strettell set himself up in trade, became involved in the
Society of Friends community and was a mayor of the city of Philadelphia.
Strettell also owned a country house in Germantown where he and his
family spent their summers. A contemporary observer described Robert
Strettell's son Amos: ". . .he [Robert] had only one son who Liv'd
with him, about 19, and was in Partnership with him in Trade, he
appear'd to be a very Promising Sober and well Inclin'd young Man, and
much Attach'd to Business, even Uncommon for his years."
Amos Strettell grew up to be an influential merchant in Philadelphia.
In 1752 he was involved in the establishment of the first fire insurance
company in America, being chosen a director along with Benjamin
Franklin. During October 1764, when conflict arose in Pennsylvania
4. (cont.) Centurian of Monroe County, Pa. , Who j_s Still Living in His
107th Year (Philadelphia: Claxton, Remser and Haffelfinger, 1870T, p.
32.
5. P. William Filby, ed., with Mary K. Meyer, Passenger and
Immigration Lists Index supplement, (Detroit: Gale Research Company,
1982), p. 812; Albert Cook Myers, Quaker Arrivals at Philadelphia
1682-1750 (Philadelphia: Ferris & Leach, 1902) p. 102; "Notes and
Queries" PMHB 2, no. 1, (1878) : 115. A copy of the Scull-Strettell deed
of sale was not located in Easton.
6. "Journal of William Black," PMHB I, no. 4, (1877):408.
14
between those in favor of retaining the proprietary form of government
and those favoring a change to a royal province, Benjamin Franklin was
defeated in Philadelphia County for another term in the House of
Assembly after 14 years' service. However, he was subsequently
appointed an agent of the province to assist in transacting provincial
affairs in London. Amos Strettell was opposed to Franklin's appointment
and later, as an assemblyman, he voted on the side of the Quaker
churchmen opposed to the government. In 1769 during the heady days of
defiance against the Townsend Acts, Amos Strettell became involved with
the first violation of the Philadelphia merchants' non-importation
agreements. Charming Polly arrived in port with a cargo of malt on July
17. Amos Strettell was the cargo's consignee but he denied any
knowledge of the malt. After an investigation the Committee of Merchants
decided that "the Cargoe was principally consigned to the Captain who
had orders to value himself on Mr. Strettell." Philadelphia brewers
vowed not to purchase any of the malt and stated that whoever did so
"had not a just sense of liberty, and is an enemy of his country."
Charming Polly sailed from Philadelphia without any sale of malt. Strettell
was thus involved, both in private practice and public service, with the
foremost issues of his day.
At Strettell's death at his home in Front Street, Philadelphia, on
January 13, 1780, at the age of 60, an obituary notice described him as
an "eminent and intelligent" merchant. He had "obtained the approbation
of his fellow citizens" and "in the more silent path of private life, [he
was] deservedly beloved by his family and the poor, for affection
7. George Cuthbert Gillespie, "Early Fire Protection and the Use of
Firemarks," PMHB XLVI, no. 3 (1922):253; George S. Wykoff, "Notes and
Documents," PMHB LXVI, no. 1, (January 1942): 101 -102; Robert C.
Moon, The Morris Family of Philadelphia, 5 vols. (Philadelphia: By the
Author, 1898), II: 457. R. L. Brunhouse, "The Effect of the Townshend
Acts in Pennsylvania," PMHB LIV, no. 4, (1930) :366-367.
15
and beneficience. " He was buried in the family vault at Christ Church
o
Burial Ground in Philadelphia.
Two Sisters and Two Brothers
Amos Strettell left his property in Northampton County at his death
in 1780 to his two daughters Ann and Frances, who were born to him and
his wife Hannah Hasell on January 12, 1755, and October 14, 1758.
Strettell's will provided for his daughters' shares of his estate to be paid
to them at age 21 unless they married before that age. In that case the
daughters were to be paid one-half on the day of their marriages and the
other half when they reached 21 years. Ann and Frances inherited not
only the Northampton County property from their father but several
tracts of land in west "new Jersey" and a furnace and forge in
9
Cumberland County as well.
Ann Strettell married Cadwalader Morris on April 8, 1779, at her
parents' home "in Front Street." The marriage was entered in the Christ
8. Quoted in Moon, Morris Family, II: 467. Strettell's son-in-law
Cadwalader Morris offered an even more flattering portrait, written in the
family Bible:
The writer of this, from a thorough knowledge of his
virtues, begs to add, that a man of more real worthiness was
not to be found. Without the pomp and parade of Religion, no
person had a higher reverence for it, and in a greater degree
regulated every action of his life, by its pure dictates. His
discharge of every trust in public life, (many of which he was
honoured with by his country), and his scrupulous attachment
to justice, in his private transactions, sufficiently confirm what
is here asserted. His sorrowful children, while they lament
their loss, console themselves with the reflection, of his happy
translation from a most painful disorder of a long duration, to a
happy immortality.
Moon, Morris Family, II: 458.
9. Will, Book R-287, p. 368, 1780 County of Philadelphia, Register of
Wills, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
16
Church records. Ann was described as being a "very lovely and
accomplished woman, having been sent to England, where she received
every advantage. She was said to be the best educated woman in
Philadelphia." She died January 15, 1792. 10
Cadwalader Morris was born February 19, 1741, the son of Samuel
Morris and Hannah Cadwalader. He was in partnership with his brother
Samuel C. Morris in 1767 running a "variety of goods" business on
"Chestnut Street from Front Street, Westerly, 5 doors from the corner of
2nd Street" in Philadelphia. Cadwalader superintended the firm's
business affairs in the West Indies and during one voyage when he was
around 23 years old he was shipwrecked for a week on an island 10
leagues (approximately 30 miles) from Cuba. He lived for a time in
Kingston, Jamaica and other West Indies cities. During the Revolutionary
War Cadwalader served in the Philadelphia Troop of Light Horse, which
11
was commanded by his cousin Captain Samuel Morris.
Cadwalader helped establish the Bank of Pennsylvania in 1780 and
the Bank of North America in 1781. He served as a delegate to Congress
in 1783 and during the French Revolution in 1793 he helped organize,
along with David Rittenhouse, Benjamin Rush, and Caesar Rodney, the
Philadelphia Democratic Society in sympathy with France. They resolved
to call each other "Citizen" and to date their letters from July 4, 1776, in
12
a zeal to follow the French example.
Morris operated the Hay Creek Forge near Birdsborough, Robeson
Township, Berks County, along with several other Philadelphia
businessmen from 1788 to 1796. He also owned one-third interest of the
Hopewell Furnace on French Creek, Union Township in Berks County from
10. Moon, Morris Family, II: 433.
11. Ibid., 434, 437.
12. Ibid., 434-436.
17
1788 until 1790 when he sold his share of the 5,163 acres of furnace lands
to his brother Benjamin Morris. Cadwalader Morris died January 25,
13
1795, in Philadelphia. No mention was made in the brief Cadwalader
Morris and Ann Strettell biographies of their ownership of property in
Northampton County.
Frances Strettell married Benjamin Morris on June 19, 1788, at
Cadwalader and Ann Morris' home on Walnut Street in Philadelphia.
Frances1 husband served in the Pennsylvania legislature and in 1789 the
couple lived on Second Street, opposite the "new Market" in Philadelphia.
Benjamin was an owner of the Hopewell Furnace after his brother
Cadwalader sold one-third interest to him in 1790. In the next year the
other owner of the furnace, James Old, sold his two-thirds interest to
Benjamin. In 1793 Benjamin Morris resold the entire property to James
Old, who was forced seven years later to yield his title through legal
procedure to his creditor, Benjamin Morris, at a sheriff's sale. In
14
August 1800 Morris sold the property for the final time.
By 1794 the Morrises had settled in Reading where Benjamin served
as an associate judge of Berks County. John Hugg Clunn, a member of
the Jersey troops which marched across Pennsylvania in 1794 to put down
the Pennsylvania Whiskey Insurrection, wrote a contemporary description
of the Morrises in Reading:
Had an invitation to sup with Col Morris. He is a very polite
man and has a Handsome accomplished little wife. Was treated
with great civility & requested me to call often on him during
our stay here, and not to forget on my return. I am sure I
shall not, for where 1cCivility comes from the very heart it
cannot pass unnoticed.
13. Ibid., 433, 436; Morton L. Montgomery, "Early Furnaces and Forges
of Berks County, Penna.," PMHB VIII, no. 1, (1884):60, 64.
14. Moon, Morris, II: 452; Montgomery, "Furnaces, " :60-61 . The
Hopewell Furnace is now the Hopewell Village National Historic Site in the
National Park System.
15. John Hugg Clunn, "March on Pittsburgh, 1794," PMHB LXXI, no. 1,
(January 1947):47.
18
Benjamin and Frances Morris finally settled near Phoenixville,
Chester County, on property which Frances and her sister Ann had
inherited from their mother, Hannah Hasell. Benjamin built a residence
there known as the "Knoll." Frances died about 1835 and Benjamin died
1 fi
at the Knoll in 1841. Again, no mention was made in the brief
biographies of the Morrises' ownership of property in Northampton
County. No information is thus known about any farming or construction
the Morris brothers and the Strettell sisters might have had done on the
Upper Mount Bethel Township parcel of land.
"Yeoman" Samuel Pipher
On April 17, 1790, less than two years before Ann's death and five
years before Cadwalader's death, the four Morrises sold "that parcel and
16. Moon, Morris Family, II: 452-453. An obituary of Benjamin Morris
read as follows:
OBITUARY.
Died on Tuesday evening, the 17th instant, at his
residence in Chester County, Benjamin Morris, Esquire, who for
many years was an Associate Judge of the Court of Common
Pleas of Berks County, the duties of which office, he
discharged with singular promptitude and integrity.
He was an elegant scholar of the old school; had a peculiar
and happy taste for the cultivation of the Belles Lettres, and
possessed a most accurate and extensive knowledge, of general
and historical Literature.
He was an agreeable, cheerful, and instructive
companion — easy and elegant in his intercourse with Society,
and exceedingly courteous in his general deportment.
During his residence in Reading, he occupied an enviable
station in the circle of society, and was highly esteemed by all
to whom he was known.
His highly polished and gentlemanly manners--his
hospitality and beneficence, procured him the warmest affections
of the circle in which he moved, and rendered him the object of
respect and veneration , of the neighborhood in which he lived.
The death of such a man, is a loss to Society, and an
irreparable loss to his friends and relations.
Moon, II: 454.
19
tract of Land Situate lying in and being in Mount Bethell Township
County of Northampton" to Samuel Piper "yeoman" of Northampton County
for "seven hundred and Eighty two pounds ten Shillings lawful money of
17
Pennsylvania." The tract contained 391 1/4 acres.
When Samuel Piper bought the property he paid half the purchase
price and took out a mortgage for b332.10. He was bound to Benjamin
Morris for the sum of h665 for the payment of E332.10. The mortgage
gave a description of the property, which was the same as in the 1753
deed. Samuel Piper was buying the land "Together with all and singular
the Houses, Outhouses, Buildings, Barns, Stables, gardens, Orchards,
Improvements, Ways, Woods, Waters, Water Courses, Rights, Liberties,
privileges, Herditaments and appurtenances whatsoever thereunto
1 8
belonging, or in anywise appertaining. Even though the property was
described as Benjamin Morris' "plantation & Tract of Land," there is still
no proof as to what sort of improvements, if any, existed on the land.
These stock legal phrases were used to cover all particulars in a land
transaction. No evidence either at the site or in historical records has
yet been found concerning what structures the Morrises might have
placed on the property.
17. Deed Book G-1, pp. 273-274, indenture of April 17, 1790, recorded
June 22, 1790, Northampton County Government Center, Easton,
Pennsylvania (hereafter cited as NCE). An interesting insight contained
in this deed is the involvement of Ann and Frances Strettell Morris at a
time when married women enjoyed no status in the eyes of the law.
James Diemer Esq., president of the Court of Common Pleas for Berks
County, acknowledged the deed and stated "... the said Ann and
Frances being of full Age Seperately and apart by me Examined from their
said Husbands the contents thereof being first made known to them they
voluntarily and without being forced thro fear or threats from their said
Husbands Consented thereto."
18. Deed Book G-1, pp. 274-275, indenture of April 17, 1790, recorded
June 22, 1790, NCE.
20
19
Samuel Pipher's origins are unknown. Further genealogical
research may discover where he was born, when or if he immigrated to
Pennsylvania, and perhaps even the ethnic origin and spelling of the
Pipher name. A Pipher descendent asserts that the family name is
Holland Dutch, and a contemporary described Samuel Pipher as a
"Dutchman." Evidence does exist, however, that Pipher may be a German
name. Derivative spellings such as Peifer, Piper and Peiffer can be
found in German immigrant lists of those people entering the port of
Philadelphia from 1727 to 1775. Many of these Palatines sailed from
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, on their journey to the New World.
Additionally, Northampton County was very heavily settled with Germans;
Dutch influence was scarce. No conclusive evidence has as yet
determined Samuel Pipher's heritage or even the spelling of his name. He
evidently could not write, for his mortgage agreement was marked with
his X. In this text, then, German influences in agriculture and
architecture as they relate to Slateford Farm and Northampton County
20
history will be cited because they were so predominant.
19. Various spellings of Pipher exist in historical documents, including
Piffer, Piper, Pfeiffer, Peyfer, Pfaeffer, Pifer, Peiffer, and Pfeifer. The
spelling in the text will be the one used in the document cited. The
park has adapted the "Pipher" spelling and this variation will be used in
the text for general references. Spelling variations also occur in the
names of Samuel Pipher's wife and daughtei — Christina and Christine.
20. Hinke, William John, ed., Pennsylvania German Pioneers. A
Publication of the Original Lists of Arrivals In the Port of Philadelphia
From 1727 to 1808, vol. 1 1727-1775 by Ralph Beaver Strassburger,
(Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1966). See index;
Interview with Matilda and E. Lee McMillen, Easton, Pennsylvania,
September 26, 1984; Burrell, Reminiscences, p. 56. Deed Book G-1, p.
275, indenture of April 17, 1790, recorded June 22, 1790, NCE. An
article about early Pennsylvania history which appeared in Hazard's
Register also mentions German immigration through Holland: "A great
number 'of Germans or Palatines went from Holland to Pennsylvania; on
which occasion the Governor and Council of Pennsylvania resolved, that
they should sign a declaration of their allegiance and subjection to the
king. . . ." Samuel Hazard, "Early History of Pennsylvania," The
Register of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: July 1828 to January), II: 203.
21
Samuel Pipher was an experienced farmer when he bought the 391
1/4 acres by the Delaware River. It is not known where he lived before
he brought his family to the Delaware Water Gap area but bits of evidence
suggest he lived somewhere in Upper Mount Bethel Township as early as
the 1760s. Remaining colonial records reveal the name of Samuel Pipher
(with spelling variations) but it cannot be ascertained in some cases
whether this is the same man who owned the farm. No Samuel Pipher (or
derivation thereof) was found in Northampton County tax records for the
year 1761, but one Samueal Peiffer, farmer from Bethlehem, paid a
proprietary tax of E2.6.8 in 1772. A Samuel Pfaeffer was listed as a
resident of Mount Bethel Township in 1773. The county tax record for
Mount Bethel Township in 1775 listed a Samuel Piper as owning 50 acres
of which 10 acres were cleared and five acres sowed, one horse and one
horned cow. A Samuel Pifer is listed in Mount Bethel Township tax
records for 1779. The first United States Census in 1790 for
Pennsylvania reveals a Samuel Pifer, with a household of three "free
white males of 16 years and upward, including heads of families," three
"free white males under 16 years," and five "free white females including
heads of families." The census also said that Samuel Pifer's household
21
contained no slaves.
A Samuel Pfeiffer appears in Revolutionary War records as being in
Captain Patrick Campbell's Sixth Company, Sixth Battalion of Northampton
County Militia on May 14, 1778. Another Revolutionary War document
21. "Northampton County Tax List For the Year 1761," Copied by the
Personnel of the Works Progress Administration (Easton, Pennsylvania:
Easton Public Library, 1938), unpublished typescript; Richard and
Mildred C. Williams, "Proprietary -Tax Northampton County, Pennsylvania
1772," Danboro, Pennsylvania, unpublished typescript, n.y., p. 41;
Matthew S. Henry, "Manuscript History of Northampton County,
Pennsylvania," unpublished typescript, 1851, p. 12; Preston A. Laury,
Index to the Scotch- Irish of Northampton County, vol I, supplement,
(Easton, Pennsylvania: The Northampton County Historical and
Genealogical Society, 1939) pp. 520-521; "Tax Lists in Northampton
County Court House 1774-1806," Translated by Rev. A. S. Leiby,
unpublished typescript; Bureau of the Census, Heads of Families at the
First Census of the United States Taken j_n the Year 1790 Pennsylvania
(Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1908) p. 180.
22
possibly aids in pinpointing the future owner of Slateford Farm. During
the war an act of the Pennsylvania General Assembly on June 13, 1777
decreed that all white male inhabitants over the age of 18 had to take an
"Oath of Allegience" to the commonwealth. Penalties were severe for
anyone who failed to comply with the act, including the loss of citizenship
rights. If a man complied he received a certificate which he had to show
on demand to prove his loyalty. Any man who left his city or county and
failed to carry his certificate could be arrested as a spy. A Samuel
Peyfer of Northampton County took the oath on May 11, 1778. Three
other Peyfers also took the oath: Christian Peyfer on August 15, 1777,
Jacob Peyfer on August 15, 1777, and Peter Peyfer on November 11,
22
1777. While Samuel Pipher had three sons by the names of Christian,
Jacob and Peter, they were not over the age of 16 in 1777. The
similarity and yet simultaneously, the variation, of the names makes it
difficult to determine whether the various Samuel Peyfer, Pfeiffer, Pifers
cited in the records are the same man who owned Slateford Farm.
Church records do substantiate that Samuel Pfeiffer was in
Northampton County in 1766 for he and his wife Christine baptized their
first child Samuel (born March 5) on April 5 in the Reformed and
22. Richard T. and Mildred C. Williams, "Soldiers of the American
Revolution Northampton County Pennsylvania," Danboro, Pennsylvania,
unpublished typescript, 1979, p. 288; Henry F. Marx, ed., "Oaths of
Allegience of Northampton County, Pennsylvania 1777-1784 . . . from
Original Lists of John Arndt, Recorder of Deeds 1777-1800," typescript,
Easton, Pennsylvania: Easton Public Library, 1932, pp. 8, 38, 41. Marx
also provided the text of the oath:
I , do swear or affirm, that I renounce and refuse all
allegience to George the Third, King of Great Britain, his heirs
and successors; and that I will be faithful and bear true
allegience to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a free and
independent state, and that I will not at anytime do or cause to
be done any matter or thing that will be prejudicial or injurious
to the freedom and independence thereof, as declared by
Congress; and also that I will discover and make known to some
one Justice of the Peace of said State all treasons or traitorous
conspiracies which I now know or hereafter shall know to be
formed against this or any of the United States of America.
23
Lutheran Congregations at the Dryland Church, Nazareth Township in
Northampton County (now the Trinity, Lutheran and Dryland Reformed)
in Hecktown, Pennsylvania. (The child's sponsors were John Eiener and
Maria Pfeiffer.) Samuel, who was born between 1736 and 1740, and
Christine, born possibly in 1738, became the parents of ten children.
Three more sons followed after Samuel: Jacob, born about 1769;
Christian, born about 1772; and John, born December 25, 1784. The
births of the rest of the children were listed in the church record of the
Lutheran and Reformed Congregations in Upper Mount Bethel Township.
The first services of these congregations were held in private houses in
1772 to 1773 where Williamsburg now stands. The two congregations then
built a small log church at the same place about 1774. A stone structure
was built in Centreville, Pennsylvania, where the congregation worshipped
until 1831. The present building, which constitutes the Upper Mt. Bethel
Church, was finished in 1832. It was with one or both of these
congregations (since both groups used the same church record it is
difficult to tell which congregation the Piphers belonged to--the children's
baptisms were entered by both the Reformed and Lutheran ministers) that
the Piphers shared the birth of their children. Communicant lists for the
23
years 1774 to 1777 also list a Samuel Pfeiffer.
The following list is the baptism record for the remaining Pipher
children with spelling variations:
23. "Church Record of the Reformed and Lutheran Congregations in
Nazareth Township Northampton County Pennsylvania formerly The
Dryland Church now the Trinity Lutheran and Dryland Reformed,
Hecktown Pennsylvania," Translated by Dr. Wm. J. Hinke, 1929,
unpublished typescript, p. 11; "Church Record of the Lutheran and
Reformed Congregation in Upper Mount Bethel Township Northampton
County 1774-1833," Copied by Dr. Wm. J. Hinke, August-October, 1934,
unpublished typescript, pp. II, 145; Mildred and Lee McMillen
"Genealogical Family Tree," Easton, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Pipher
genealogy can be found in U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, "Historic Structures Report, Architectural Data, Slateford Farm,
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area," (HSR) by Penelope
Hartshorne Batcheler, Denver, Colorado, 1982, pp. 192-196. Perhaps
Maria Pfeiffer was a sister or the mother of Samuel. No birth records
were found for Jacob, Christian and John. The McMillen genealogy lists
John as a grandson but he was a son, so named in the 1812 will and 1817
releases.
24
Samuel Pfiefer
Christine
Samuel Pfeifer
Christine
Samuel Peiffer
Christine
Samuel Pfeiffer
Christine
Samuel Peiffer
Christine
Samuel Peiffer
Christine
Michael
[sponsors] Michael Hes
Gertrude
Christine
[sponsors] Christian Bender
Christine
Anna Elizabeth
[sponsors] Elias Dieter
Elizabeth Gross
Maria Catharine
[sponsors] Adam Many
Maria Catharine
Frederick
[sponsors] Jacob Beck
Anna Maria
Peter
[sponsors] JacobwHerman
Anna
b. Sept. 30, 1775
bap. Oct. 22
b. Aug. 26, 1778
bap. Sept. 27
b. July 31, 1782
bap. Aug. 11
b. June 18, 1787
bap. July 29, 1787
b. Aug. 20, 1789
bap. Sept. 20
b. Nov. 20, 1791
bap. Feb. 19, 1792
24. "Lutheran and Reformed," pp. 5, 8, 13, 20, 24, 28. Samuel and
Christine Pfeiffer also stood up at the baptism of one of their grandsons,
Samuel, the son of John and wife Eva, on May 31, 1807 at the same
church. Ibid., p. 68. The records of the First Reformed Church of
Easton mention the birth of a child to a Samuel and Christina Pfeiffer.
The baby was a girl named Anna Catharine and was born November 16,
1768. The child's sponsors were a Christian Pfeiffer and his wife Anna
Catharine. This child does not appear on the genealogical chart prepared
by Pipher descendant Mildred McMillen. Some of the First Settlers of
"The Forks of the Delaware" and Their Descendants Being a Translation
From the German of the Record Books of the First Reformed Church of
Easton, Penna. From 1760 to 1852. Translated and Published by the
Rev. Henry Martyn Kieffer (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co.,
Inc., 1973) p. 90. Christian Peiffer, yeoman, of Forks Township, owned
a lot in Easton in the late 1770s and early 1780s. He was thought to be a
storekeeper, and had a son, John, and a daughter, Catharina. Possibly,
Christian Peiffer was a brother to Samuel. Chidsey Jr., A Frontier
Village, pp. 235, 237, 259. The church record for the Reformed and
25
A tax assessment in 1782 for Northampton County, Mount Bethel
Township, reveals that Samuel Pfeiffer was a farmer who paid tax on 52
acres of land valued at h52. He owned two horses valued at b12, three
horned cattle valued at b9, and 12 sheep at b3. The entire valuation of
Pfeiffer's possessions was b76 and he paid a tax of b2, 10 shillings. It
25
is not known where Pfeiffer was living in the township.
It is not known how many of the Pipher children moved with their
parents to the Delaware Water Gap property. The oldest children were
grown by 1790 when Samuel bought the tract and they were already
establishing their own families. The eldest son Samuel moved to Wayne
County (which in 1836 became Monroe County) sometime after 1800 as did
his brothers Jacob and Michael. (See appendix 12 for tax lists.)
Christian and Christine both moved at sometime to Cayuga County, New
York. It is possible, therefore, that only the middle and youngest
children lived on the farm for any amount of time.
Even though it is not known how many, if any, structures were on
the property when Samuel Pipher purchased it, what is known is that he
built a tavern about one mile north of Slateford (not yet settled) and half
a mile south of Cold Cave. The tavern was known as the "Gap Tavern"
and was demolished sometime after 1812. A stone building was erected in
its place, which, in 1877, was being occupied as a dwelling house. As
Samuel began to develop the farm he also added acreage and helped a son
buy property nearby. In 1793 he helped Jacob buy 80 acres, triangular
in shape, immediately adjacent to his land on the north side and wedged
24. (cont.) Lutheran Congregations at the Dryland Church in Hecktown
also listed a Jacob and George Pfeiffer as communicants in 1767. Perhaps
they were brothers to Samuel Pfeiffer. "Reformed and Lutheran,"
p. 134.
25. "Provencial Tax Assessment 1782 Northampton County," p. 187,
Manuscript Department, The Historical Society of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia (HSP).
26. McMillen, "Genealogical."
26
between the Delaware River and the base of the Blue Mountain. Jacob
later moved to Middle Smithfield Township in Wayne County and the land
was transferred back to his father in 1812. The price for the parcel had
been L45. This transaction had been performed by private deed and was
recorded at the Easton Courthouse on January 15, 1833. This
registration was made to clarify title for Samuel Pipher's heirs. A similar
acquisition, this time of 31 acres and 150 perches, was made in 1797.
Samuel Pipher never recorded this deed at the courthouse, but his heirs
27
once again recorded it in 1833. The price was L100 in 1797.
During these years George LaBar, a grandson of Peter LaBar, one
of the region's first settlers, was a nearby neighbor. At his death in
1874 George had attained the age of 111 years and nine months. His
reminiscences, written when he was 107 years old, contained the following
reference to Samuel Pipher: "Old Samuel Pipher moved into the
neighborhood about eighty years ago. He was a very pleasant Dutchman,
and the young folks of the neighborhood used to gather at his house
28
frequently to have a good time." George LaBar also described how, as
a youth, he had to travel by horseback over Blue Mountain through Tat's
Gap, to mill grain in Stroudsburg. This mill was the only one available
for Mount Bethel residents, while those "from the more southern part of
the settlement" traveled to Easton for milling. At that time the corn was
in most cases,, pounded in mortars. It is possible, then, that members of
the Pipher family may have made that same trip over Blue Mountain to mill
29
their grain.
27. Ellis, History of Northampton, p. 251; Deed Book F-5, p. 469, dated
June 1, 1793, recorded January 15, 1833, NCE; Deed Book H-5, pp.
385-386, dated August 22, 1797, recorded August 9, 1833, NCE. These
purchases were also noted in releases signed by the Pipher children,
recorded in 1820.
28. Burrell, Reminiscences, p. 56.
29. Ibid.; p. 51.
27
The Piphers may have traveled through the Delaware Water Gap on a
road which originally was an Indian trail. It was used as early as 1730
when Nicholas Schull traveled through the gap, but it was not until 1800
that a wagon road was constructed through the subscriptions of people
30
living above and below the mountain. Not long after the Piphers
bought Slateford Farm they would have had adequate access to neighbors
and nearby towns.
In 1798 Samuel Pfeiffer, senior, paid a direct tax on a house which
measured 30 feet by 22 feet. The two-story house was made of wood,
31
and sat on a lot of 80 perches. The house was valued at $175. The
extant cabin at Slateford Farm measures 18'9" by 26'2". Despite the
differences in measurements, it is possible that the cabin is the same
dwelling referred to in the 1798 tax list. The cabin has been dated to c.
1800-1810, and was built by Samuel Pipher. It is not known where the
family was living until this time; perhaps they were in the tavern near
the river or in a homestead established on the property by Amos Strettell
or the Morrises. All that is known is contained in Samuel Pipher's will,
written on March 16, 1812. After Samuel's death in August his property
was divided between three of his children with provisions made for the
31
care of his widow Christina. (See append
See appendix 11 for the 1798 direct tax data.)
31
care of his widow Christina. (See appendix 2 for copy of the will
To his daughter Maria Catharine, or Mary, who was married to Peter
Kocher, Samuel left:
30. Robert Brown Keller, History of Monroe County Pennsylvania
(Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, 1927), p. 494.
31. See Batcheler, HSR, pp. 19-25. "Last Will and Testament of Samuel
Piffer," Will Book 4, pp. 431-43, dated March 16, 1812, File 2801,
Register of Wills, NCE. Batcheler dated the house to 1800-1810. "United
States Direct Tax of 1798: Tax Lists for the State of Pennsylvania"
Microcopy no. 372, Roll 12, Fifth Direct Tax Division, vols. 360-373,
First Through Fourth Assessment Districts, vol. 361, Federal Archives
and Records Center, Philadelphia.
28
. . . the new Stone house in the Water Gap the Tavern house
Along the River Dullaware untill on the hill on the Level
between the Tavern house and the old buildings Starts through
the place and My daughter Mary is to have one other Tract of
Land of Thirty Two Acres [?] near Abraham Labars and Joining
Said Labars Land
Samuel left the western portion of his estate to his son Frederick:
... my Son Frederick Piffer is to have Such part of Real
Estate [adjoining] Abraham Labar and to the Line between him
and his Brother Peter Piffer True [through?] the hole place to
the [?] Creek and he is also to pay for his place four hundred
pounds and to the Remainder of My Children that is to Say
Twenty five pounds yearly after my Decease
The central portion of the estate, where the Slateford Farm
homestead now stands, was given to Samuel's son Peter.
. . . my Son Peter Piffer is to pay for his share of his Sum
the old place with all the buildings between him and his Brother
Frederick Piffer and Peter Kocher one Thousand Pounds . . .
and my Son Peter Piffer is to have Twenty five acres of Timber
Land ten acres of the Land Called Robert Hall's [?] Land and
ten acres of the old Tract and also recommend if my Son
Frederick Pipper should Move of from my place wild to him by
me he is not to Sull Jiis place the hole of the place is to Come
to Peter Piffer. ...
32. "Last Will and Testament of Samuel Piffer," Will Book 4, p. 431,
dated March 16, 1812, File 2801, Register of Wills, NCE; It may be
possible that timbers from this tavern building were used to construct the
extant cabin next to the main house on the farm. The cabin members
were apparently pre-cut and pre-fit, then keyed numerically to each
other, and reassembled in place. If the documentary evidence presented
by the 1798 direct tax is taken into account, however, this theory does
not seem to hold true. If the extant cabin is the same house taxed in
1798, then it could not have been built with timbers coming from the
tavern house Mary Kocher inherited because the latter house did not
disappear until after 1812. The timbers in the cabin might have been
salvaged from yet another structure located on the property.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid., p. 432.
29
Samuel Pipher made his wife Christina, son Peter and son-in-law
Peter Kocher the executors of his estate. He gave Christina "the house
on the old place is Called the new house during her life," and Peter was
to provide her with firewood and with a good cow.
Peter was also to provide his mother with 100 pounds of pork, 10
bushels of wheat, 10 bushels of "rey" (rye) and 10 bushels of buckwheat
yearly. All of these provisions were to be delivered to Christina at her
house mentioned in the will. Christina was also to take her bedstead, a
bureau and chest, and all her clothes and utensils she may need.
Additionally, all the money and cash in Samuel's house after his death
35
was to go to Christine. (See
inventory and estate settlement.)
35
was to go to Christine. (See appendixes 3 and 4 for Samuel Peiffer's
Pipher Land Divided — Mary, Frederick, Peter
The general intent of Samuel Pipher's will was to single out his three
youngest children for special consideration, to give them a start in life.
At the time of Samuel Pipher's death in 1812 Mary was 25, Frederick 23
and Peter 21. Mary, Frederick and Peter were given the entirety of
Samuel's land in Upper Mount Bethel Township, but he gave it with
several conditions attached, so that his other children would not feel
neglected. Mary and her husband Peter Kocher, for example, were
obliged to pay a total of b600, or h50 per annum to the estate for
division by his other children. Samuel Pipher thought this a fair
settlement with Mary because he had also forgiven her and her spouse of
a monetary debt. Frederick and Peter were given similar obligations by
their father; the former had to pay the estate b400 in annual payments of
b25; the latter received the heaviest debt of b1,000 with annual payments
of b50. Peter Kocher and Frederick were given equal shares of all the
35. Ibid., p. 431
30
"appel trees for five years of the Appels and After that Time the hole of
Of.
the orchard To be the Sole use of my Son Peter Piffer for Ever. ..."
Samuel gave his wife Christina the power to take as much acreage as
she might choose. She could also sell the property and divide the
proceeds among the six children living away from the farm--b100 each
until the funds were depleted. Sons Peter and Frederick were put under
a ban that if they should sell any of the land, the monetary proceeds
were to be equally divided among Samuel Pipher's surviving
37
children—Samuel, Jacob, Christian, Michael, John, Mary and Christine.
Samuel apparently thought it likely that Frederick would sell out and
leave the hillside property because he added the proviso in his will that
if Frederick should move, he would then only be the beneficiary of such
proceeds from the estate as went to the other children. The will
indicated that nine of the ten children still survived at Samuel's death.
Anne Elizabeth Pipher probably preceded her father in death for she was
not named in the will. Samuel Pipher's widow Christina lived to be about
a hundred years old, dwelling in the "new house" on the "old place" until
about 1838. 38
Samuel signed his will with his "X" mark and the witnesses present
were Luke Brodhead, John Gragg and Henry Miller. The will was
probated on August 3, 1812. On the same date Samuel's son, Jacob
36. Ibid., pp. 431-432
37. In the copy of Samuel Piffer's will transcribed in Penelope
Batchelor's HSR, pp. 202-204, one line was deleted. Samuel Piffer named
all of his children who would receive money if his property was sold by
his wife. After naming his daughter Christiana, who was married to
William Fiske and was born after Michael, Samuel mentioned "And then to
my Son John Piffer one hundred Pounds and So yearly from the oldest
[?] to the youngest until the hole is paid. . . ." Ibid, p. 432.
38. Ibid.; McMillen, "Genealogy." If the genealogy is correct, Christina
was an extraordinary woman because she bore her first child in her late
20s, then gave birth to nine more, bearing the youngest, Peter, when
she was in her early 50s.
31
Pipher, filed a caveat against probation of the will. He wanted the
probate stopped "till I have an opportunity to be hared, as I apprehend
there are Several legal objections to Said Paper." Sometime later,
presumably, the same day Jacob revoked the caveat and desired that
Samuel's will be admitted for probate. It is not known what the
39
objections were or how and by whom they were solved.
An inventory of Samuel Pipher's property was taken on August 11,
1812 by his son Frederick and Aaron Depuis. The estate was settled
more than a year later, on September 14, 1813. The value of goods and
chattel not bequeathed was $847.09. Christine received goods and chattel
worth $194.16 and $336.75 in cash. After the surplus goods were sold,
Samuel's personal debts were paid, and funeral and other expenses were
paid (including a "demand" by Peter Peifer for working harvest and
hauling grain, and a "demand" by Peter Kocher for liquor and hauling),
the balance remaining to be divided, less advancements made previous to
Samuel's death to the children, totaled $1,692.97.
Samuel's will mentioned a book wherein he kept an account of the
advances he had made to his children. After these cash advances were
deleted and Mary and Peter Kocher's debt of $289.33 was forgiven, the
remaining amount of $926.16 was divided into six equal shares among the
oldest children. Peter Kocher, Frederick and Peter were to make real
40
estate payments to the other children as specified in the will.
The basic division of the Samuel Pipher property (the 1790 purchase
of 3911-a acres, the 1793 purchase of 80 acres, and the 1797 purchase of 31
39. Will Book 4, p. 433, dated March 16, 1812, File 2801, NCE; "Caveat
against the Last Will and Testament of Samuel Peiffer deceased, filed 3d
Aug. 1812," File 2801, NCE. See also Henry F. Marx, ed . , "Abstracts of
Wills Northampton County, 1752-1840" vol. X bound typescript, Easton,
Pennsylvania, Easton Public Library, 1935, p. 34.
40. "Inventory of the Estate late of Samuel Piffer," filed 26th Aug. 1812,
File 2801, Register of Wills, NCE. "Samuel Peiffer Settlement of the Estate
late of," filed 14th Sept. 1813, File 2801, Register of Wills, NCE.
32
acres, 150 perches) into three major portions was reconfirmed by releases
in 1816, 1817 and 1820. From the will, Mary and her husband Peter
Kocher had been given 123 acres 175 perches of land on the eastern side
of the estate along the Delaware River. Frederick received 200 acres on
the western end and Peter got the 182 acres in the middle where the
Slateford Farm complex now stands. By the six releases recorded at the
Easton courthouse in 1820, the surviving other children and their spouses
in Monroe County and New York gave up all claim to these land parcels
by acknowledging receipt of full payment for their share of Samuel
41
Pipher's estate. (See historical base map 2 for 1753 & 1812
boundaries. )
The remaining history of Pipher stewardship of Slateford Farm
concerns Peter Pipher and his son Samuel, for the farm complex is located
on property they in turn inherited. Both Mary Pipher Kocher and
Frederick, however, inherited parts of their parents' estate. A brief
history of these parcels follows because they were once part of the
original Penn grant. Very little further information is known about the
Kocher property. In March 1819 Peter and Mary sold Mary's brother
Peter two small tracts, one totaling eight acres 110 perches, and the
other one acre and 76 perches. An 1830 map shows the name "Kocher"
located next to the river. An 1874 map of Upper Mount Bethel Township
shows the name "Brown" at the same location. • The Pipher genealogy does
not indicate that the Kochers had any children to whom they might have
41. Deed Book D-4, pp. 449-456, recorded August 28, 1820, NCE. An
interesting insight revealed in these releases are the signatures of the
Pipher children and spouses. Jacob, John, Peter, Christian, Michael,
William Fisk, Peter Kocher and Christian's wife Elizabeth could all write
their names. Frederick, Christiana Pipher Fisk, Jacob's wife Ann, John's
wife Eve, Frederick's wife Sarah, Peter's wife Elizabeth, and Mary
(Maria) -Pipher Kocher all signed these documents with their X marks. As
in the earlier case of Ann and Frances Strettell Morris, the women
involved with these releases, Ann, Eve, Elizabeth, Christiana, Sarah and
Mary, were questioned about the documents separate from their husbands.
The oldest Pipher child, Samuel was probably deceased by this time
because his name does not appear on any of the releases.
33
left the property. As stated, the Gap Tavern was torn down at some
42
point and replaced with a dwelling house.
Frederick's Western Portion
Little is known about the Kocher property but there is information
concerning the western portion of the Pipher estate left to Frederick. In
1819 Frederick and his wife Sarah sold two tracts, 20 acres and 149
perches and one acre and a quarter, respectively, to Frederick's brother
Peter. In 1824 the couple sold another tract, four acres, 56 perches, to
43
Peter for $79.20 including "buildings and improvements." These
transactions may have been a faint hint that Frederick was not faring well
either in the state of his health or the success of his farming. He died
suddenly in 1830, at age 41, leaving no will. Several neighbors, Isaac
LaBar and Peter and William Frutchey were made his executors, and John
Frutchey became guardian of Frederick's minor daughter, Christina. No
mention was made of Frederick's other three daughters. Because
Frederick died intestate the Orphan's Court ordered his land sold. There
were two parcels totaling 149 acres and 80 perches, so Frederick had sold
about 50 acres of his original grant during his lifetime. James Madison
Porter bought Frederick's property for $579.54 plus interest to
42. See 1830 H. S. Tanner map in illustration 10. D. G. Beers, Atlas
of Northampton County Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: A. Pomeroy & Co.,
1874), p. 76. The land sales are referred to in Deed Book G-6, p. 571,
indenture of April 17, 1841, recorded December 27, 1841, NCE. See
illustration 11.
43. Deed Book G-6, p. 571, indenture of April 17, 1841 recorded
December 27, 1841, NCE. The sales are referred to in this deed. Deed
Book G-5 p. 472, indenture of IVlay 16, 1824, recorded May 16, 1827,
NCE.
34
Frederick's widow Sarah. (For more information on this sale and its
44
importance see Chapter Four, Porter and Frederick Pipher. )
The inventory of Frederick Pipher's earthly goods shows that he was
not a wealthy man. Aside from the land, the items on the inventory
totaled only $192.51. His prize possessions were a black mare worth $41,
a bay mare worth $15, and a red cow with white spots worth $16. In
livestock, besides these animals, he had several other cows and a dozen
sheep. The list included several plows, a sled, a dung fork and hay
forks, harness equipment for the horses, his hunting gear, a hand saw,
a curry comb, a grindstone, some knives, augers, axes, hatchets,
scythes, cradling scythes, and other tools. The furniture listed was
very modest, two beds and bedsteads, a chest, quite a few chairs, a
table, a dresser and so on. Other household items were equally meager:
a clock, several spinning wheels, an iron kettle, a fire shovel and several
tubs. The inventory told little about his farming, only that he was still
raising some flax, and of course, hay to feed his livestock. The land
was shown to be still wooded by the inclusion of an item of 366 fence
posts at a penny each. John A. Labar and George Streepy did the
45
inventory. (See appendix 5 for Frederick Pipher's inventory.)
Frederick Pipher's property was in the hands of James Madison
Porter and, subsequently, Samuel Taylor of the Pennsylvania Slate
Company until 1848. When Taylor was forced to sell the property, Aaron
Pipher, a son of Peter and nephew of Frederick, purchased it and four
other parcels owned by the slate company. The old Frederick Pipher
property now measured 140 acres and was referred to in the documents as
a "farm plantation." Seventy-five acres were cleared and the property
was well-lined, manured, and "in a good state of cultivation." It had a
44. Mortgage Book 7, pp. 360-61, recorded January 13, 1832, NCE.
45. "Inventory of the Estate late of Frederick Pipher deceased" filed
September 25, 1830, File 4117, Register of Wills, NCE.
35
good dwelling house, log barn, other outbuildings, and a good slate
46
quarry.
It is not known if Aaron Pipher quarried slate or if he developed the
industrial potential of his newly acquired properties. He must have been
modestly prosperous, since he was only 29 years old when he paid for
these properties in one lump sum ($2,600). Agricultural census data
reveals that Aaron Phifer owned 75 acres of improved and 25 acres of
unimproved land in 1850. The cast value of his farm was $3,000 and his
farming implements and machinery were valued at $160. He owned four
horses, four milch cows, seven other cattle, seven sheep, 14 swine--all of
which were worth $400. Aaron Phifer raised 30 bushels of wheat, 150
bushels of rye, 150 bushels of Indian corn, 75 bushels of oats, 75
46. Deed Book B-7, pp. 534-536, July 30, 1844, recorded August 29,
1844; Deed Book A-8, pp. 168-172, indenture of March 31, 1849, recorded
April 2, 1849, NCE. Of the five other parcels Aaron Pipher bought, one
was contiguous to the Frederick Pipher property while four were located
next to the river. The following descriptions of these properties reveal
the resources extant in 1849. Parcel two, next to the Frederick Pipher
homestead (parcel one) contained 12 acres. Four houses stood on the
property along with stables and gardens. These possibly could have
been dwellings for the slate quarry workers. Parcel three consisted of
100 acres and was east of Peter Pipher's property. It had river
frontage, and was valuable both for its timber, some cultivable land, and
a very large slate quarry. There was a factory that went with it, a
three-story 60 foot by 30 foot building that was used for the manufacture
of school slates. It had all the necessary equipment and machinery
required for such a factory and had a waterwheel propelled by the
Delaware River. Besides, there were three commodious dwellings for
housing the slate workers. Parcel four was also on the river, but had
only 12 acres. There were nine good houses there, both for slate and
lumber workers, as the property also had water power for a sawmill on
the river.
Parcel five was different, being farming property, consisting of 60
acres total, of which at least 20 acres was good rich bottom land along
the river. The latter was in a good state of cultivation.
Parcel six was separated off from the others at the sheriff's sale of
Taylor's property and was sold to George Streepy. It was only a small
lot on the river with 40 feet of river frontage, and extended back 215
feet from the river.
36
bushels of Irish potatoes, and 50 bushels of buckwheat. He produced 18
pounds of wool, 400 pounds of butter, and 15 tons of hay. The value of
his homemade manufactures was $5 and the value of the animals he
47
slaughtered was $50.
In 1860 Aaron owned the same amount of acreage, but its value
increased to $4,000. His farm implements were worth $250. He owned
three horses, six milch cows, six other cattle and six swine. These
animals were worth $600. Aaron raised 40 bushels of wheat, 225 bushels
of rye, 400 bushels of Indian corn, 250 bushels of oats, 200 bushels of
Irish potatoes and 100 bushels of buckwheat. The value of his orchard
products was $25. He also raised 25 tons of hay and three bushels of
clover seed, and produced 500 pounds of butter, four pounds of beeswax
and 40 pounds of honey. The value of his homemade manufactures was
48
$15 and the value of animals slaughtered was $200.
Aaron did not live long, dying at age 51 in 1871, the same year his
father Peter passed away. (See appendixes 7 and 8 for Aaron Pipher's
inventory and estate settlement.) Both of Aaron's sons continued to farm
the Frederick Pipher property for a few years. Emory [Emery] and Peter
soon split their combined efforts, for Emory kept the farm and Peter took
possession of a grist mill in Monroe County. In 1877 the former
Frederick Pipher estate totaled 137 acres, 143 perches. Emory and his
second wife Emma Francis Ziegenfuss sold a portion of the property,
including the old homestead, in 1899 for $2,000 to his two daughters from
his first marriage—Maria and Mary. These daughters and their
husbands, Phillip Paul Sigafoos and Frank Bartow, respectively,
continued to farm the property from 1900 to 1906. Emory apparently
lived on his share of the land until his death in 1912. Two of the Bartow
47. Agricultural Schedules, Pennsylvania, Federal Decennial Censuses
1850-1880, Roll 7 1850 Microcopy T-1138, National Archives.
48. Agricultural Schedules, Pennsylvania, Federal Decennial Censuses
1850-1880, Roll 17 1860 Microcopy T-1138, National Archives.
37
children, Beulah and Mildred, were the last Pipher descendants to be
born, in 1900 and 1906 respectively, on the original Samuel Pipher
■ * 49
land .
After Maria Ziegenfuss' death, her husband Philip Paul Ziegenfuss
sold the property in 1923, out of Pipher family hands. The property
remained in private hands until 1968 when it was obtained by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation
Area. Tract 102, belonging to Joseph Bugoni, contained the central
farmstead. The residential structure, garage, corn crib and outhouse
were removed. No photographs or history of these structures were found
in the park's land records because the land was obtained in a Declaration
t t i • 50
of Taking.
Peter's Central Section
Christina and Samuel Pipher's youngest child, Peter, inherited the
central section of the farm in 1812. Peter bore the responsibility of
providing for his elderly mother who lived in the "new house" on the "old
place," most likely the still extant cabin, until her death. After Peter
married, he and his wife Elizabeth began to raise a family; their first
child, Samuel, was born in 1813. It is not known where Peter, Elizabeth
and their growing family lived between 1812 and the early 1830s. They
may have lived with Christina or in an older farmstead on the property,
one dating from the Strettell-Morris era. In 1827 Peter built a still
existing spring house next to the cabin. He placed his initials and the
49. Deed Book 20, pp. 464-45, indenture of March 4, 1872, recorded
March 4, 1872, Monroe County Courthouse, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania,
Deed Book G-15, indenture of May 19, 1877, recorded June 11, 1877.
Deed Book F-29, pp. 348-351, recorded March 5, 1900, NCE; Letter, E.
Lee McMillen to Penelope Batcheler, June 6, 1977, Batcheler, HSR, p.
191. Mildred Bartow McMillen and her husband E. Lee prepared the
family genealogy.
50. Deed Book F-49 p. 462 indenture of October 14, 1923, NCE; DEWA
park files: land records, Tracts 101, 102, 103.
38
year on a date stone in the north gable wall where they can be seen
today. The growing Pipher family probably needed larger accommodations
and in 1833 Peter built the main house still standing on the farm. Once
again he signed his work; he gouged his initials and the date --
P18 . . . 33P -- in the cornice of the flat pedimented frontispiece over
51
the front door.
Very little is known of Peter and Elizabeth's life on the farm. In
1833 Peter did buy a large tract, 181 acres and 121 perches, along the
river from Jacob Utt. He paid $9,087.81 for the property located in the
southern portion of Slateford village. Peter also sold a tract located
along the river, earlier acquired from neighbor George LaBar, to the
Pennsylvania Slate Company in 1836. Only a few years later the same
company purchased Peter's uncle Frederick's property to the west.
Peter's son Aaron, as stated, bought this property in 1848, bringing it
52
back into Pipher hands.
When Peter was 50 years old in 1841 he sold six separate tracts
totaling 199 acres, 109 perches to his eldest son Samuel for $7,500. The
largest tract was 162 acres 158 perches which undoubtedly was the core
of the present-day Slateford Farm. The legal description in the deed
read as follows:
Tract No. 1 Beginning at a stone, a corner at Lands of the
Pennsylvania Slate Company thence South fifty seven degrees
West, ninety five perches to a stone thence by Lands of James
M. Porter Esqr. North thirty one degrees West, two hundred
and twenty perches to a stone at the Blue Mounten. Thence
along said Mounten North fifty nine degrees East one hundred
and fifty eight perches and eight tenths to a stone and Lands
of Isaac Labar, South fourteen and a half degrees East, two
hundred and twenty six perches to the place of Beginning.
51. McMillen, "Genealogy;" Batcheler, HSR, pp. 88-103, 107-153.
52. Deed Book E-6, pp. 606-608, indenture of April 1, 1836, recorded
December 18, 1839, NCE; Deed Book E-6, pp. 250-251, 1833, NCE.
39
Containing one hundred and sixty two acres and one hundred
and fifty eight perches be the same more or less. It being
part of the Real Estate which Samuel Pipher late of Upper
Mount Bethel Township . . . did Qyve • • • to Frederick
Pipher, Peter Pipher and Peter Kocher.
The second lot contained 20 acres 149 perches, and adjoined the
first lot. Both the second and third lot, which contained one acre and a
quarter, were the same lots which Frederick and Sarah Pipher conveyed
to Peter on March 15, 1819. The fourth lot Peter sold Samuel was the lot
Frederick and Sarah sold Peter on May 16, 1824, containing four acres
and 56 perches. Lots five and six, totaling eight acres and 110 perches
and one acre and 76 perches, respectively, were the same two lots Peter
Kocher and his wife Mary Pipher Kocher sold to Mary's brother Peter on
March 15, 1819. 54
It is not known where Samuel, his wife Elizabeth and their children
were living at the time of this sale in 1841. Both father and son, Peter
and Samuel, were raising children in the 1830s, so it is possible that
Peter and Elizabeth stayed on the farm with Samuel until its sale out of
the Pipher family in 1868. Peter probably lived on a nearby farm at least
for a few years because his name appears in census data for 1850. His
name does not appear in the 1860 census; he might have moved to
Slateford by that time.
Both father and son appeared in the 1850 federal census. Peter
Phifer owned 158 acres of improved and 25 acres of unimproved land.
His farm was worth $9,000 and his farming machinery was worth $400.
He owned six horses, seven milch cows, four other cattle, six sheep and
26 swine--all valued at $600. Peter raised 200 bushels of wheat, 300
bushels of rye, 400 bushels of Indian corn, 200 bushels of oats, 75
bushels of Irish potatoes, and 400 bushels of buckwheat. He raised 18
53. Deed Book G-6, pp. 570-71, indenture of April 17, 1841, recorded
December 27, 1841, NCE.
54. Ibid., p. 571.
40
pounds of wool, 700 pounds of butter and 25 tons of hay. The value of
his homemade manufactures was $10 and the value of his slaughtered
55
animals was $200.
Samuel Phifer owned 140 acres of improved and 35 acres of
unimproved land, valued at $6,000. His farm machinery was worth $360.
He owned seven horses, six milch cows, nine other cattle, 16 sheep and
15 swine--valued at $600. Samuel raised 100 bushels of wheat, 500
bushels of rye, 600 bushels of Indian corn, 100 bushels of oats, 100
bushels of Irish potatoes and 100 bushels of buckwheat. He also
produced 45 pounds of wool, 700 pounds of butter and 30 tons of hay.
His homemade manufactures were worth $10 and his slaughtered animals
56
were valued at $100.
The Piphers' lives were probably affected by the completion of the
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad in 1855 and 1856 through the
Delaware Water Gap. The Piphers could then ship their goods to wider
i + 57
markets.
A daybook entitled "Slateford," kept in 1858-1859 for quarry
operations contains the names of Samuel, Aaron and Peter Pipher. The
Piphers supplied foodstuffs to the quarry company store in exchange for
mercantile goods. The name of Peter may refer to the owner of Slateford
Farm, or it may refer to his son and Samuel and Aaron's brother - Peter
W. The daybook entries in most instances cite Peter, but an account
number which appears before each name remains the same for Peter W. A
company named Pipher & Wallick supplied meat to the quarry company
CO
store on several occasions throughout the year-long records. No
55. Agricultural Schedules, 1850.
56. Ibid. The reasons for the discrepancy in the acreage is unknown.
57. Keller, History of Monroe County, p. 241.
58. Daybook, Slateford [Pennsylvania], Joseph Downs Manuscript
Collection, No. 80 x 100, Winterthur Museum.
41
further information about this company is known. Whether the Peter in
the daybook refers to the Slateford Farm owner, or to his son Peter W.,
is of small consequence when considering that the daybook documents the
Pipher family's interaction with the nearby quarry operations. (See
appendix 19 for the Pipher citations in the Slateford daybook.)
Peter died at the age of 80 on April 23, 1871. In his will, dated
May 27, 1868, Peter stated he wished to be interred in the Presbyterian
churchyard in Williamsburg, and that his executors place "an iron fence
around the same as Isaac Labars and inclose in my Mothers [Christina]
grave if it is possible. ..." Peter also wanted his executors to use
$100 to repair and make fences around the "said Church if they think
proper to do so, as I mean it for the benifit of said Church." Elizabeth
Pipher received from her husband the "use of my House and Lot of Land"
for the rest of her life. She additionally received all Peter's real estate,
furniture and $2,000 in cash. Peter's estate was to be divided into seven
shares and divided among six children--Samuel, John, Aaron, Sarah,
Elizabeth, Peter W.--and the estate (to five grandchildren) of a seventh
child, Charles, already deceased. Each of these children and Charles'
estate had received cash advances from their father previous to his
death. Peter W. not only received a share of the estate but also was to
be given, after the death of his mother Elizabeth (in 1872), the real
estate in Slateford plus $2,000 "for services rendered by him and his Wife
to us in our lifetime. ..." Peter W. was also to have for his use and
benefit "any and all grain etc growing on my Real Estate at my Decease."
At Peter's death his personal property and real estate were valued at
$25,897. (See appendix 6 for Peter Pipher's inventory.)
59. "Last will of Peter Pipher decD," Proved May 4, 1871, File 8648,
Register of Wills, NCE; "Inventory Estate of Peter Pipher decD" Filed
June 3, 1871, File 8648, Register of Wills, NCE. Peter's children had
received the following cash advances: Samuel, $1,257; John $1,138.97;
Charles' children, $842.77; Aaron, $951.60; Sarah, $1,304.14; Elizabeth
$1,265.80; and Peter W., $922.53. Peter and Elizabeth's youngest child
Andrew probably died in infancy or childhood. Charles' widow Sarah
received only $10 from her father-in-law. The 1874 Beers map of Upper
Mount Bethel Township shows P. W. Pipher as living in Slateford.
42
Peter and Elizabeth's son Samuel and his wife Elizabeth owned the
central portion of his grandparents' original land for 27 years, from 1841
until 1868. They raised their children on the property, most likely in
the house that Samuel's father had built with his own hands. The
agricultural census of 1860 reveals data concerning the Samuel Pipher
family's farming. Samuel is listed as owning 160 improved and 26
unimproved acres. His farm worth $9,000 and his farming implements
were valued at $500. The Piphers owned five horses, seven milch cows,
12 sheep and 12 swine--all worth $800. Samuel raised 60 bushels of
wheat, 300 bushels of rye, 400 bushels of Indian corn, 200 bushels of
oats, 40 pounds of wool, one bushel of beans and peas, 300 bushels of
Irish potatoes, and 200 bushels of buckwheat. The value of Samuel's
orchard products was $20. He and his family produced 700 pounds of
butter, 25 tons of hay and four bushels of clover seed. His homemade
manufactures were worth $20 and the value of his slaughtered animals was
$300. 60
It is not known why Samuel and Elizabeth decided to sell the
property which had been in Pipher hands since 1790. Perhaps they
succumbed to the instant wealth offered by the prospective buyers. The
land itself could have been steadily deteriorating in its ability to sustain
crops. Being near Blue Mountain the farm was not as fertile as the
limestone lands to begin with and it had been tilled for at least 78 years
if not longer. Samuel and Elizabeth's five children were all grown by
1868 so it is also possible that the parents wanted to retire to a simpler
life while in their early-to-mid 50s. (See historical base map 3 for 1865
Slateford Farm conditions).
For whatever reason, Samuel and Elizabeth sold the Pipher homestead
on December 18, 1868 to a group of businessmen for $25,000. The
businessmen, Uzal Cory of Englewood, New Jersey; Julius S. Howell and
Theodore D. Howell from Jersey City, New Jersey; and New Yorkers
60. Agricultural Schedules, 1860.
43
Samuel R. Elton, Richard H. Stearns and Richard D. Wilson formed the
New York and Delaware River Slate Company. They were interested in
the Pipher land not for its agricultural value, but for its slate potential.
It was a well known fact that the farm was on top of a soft slate belt and
that successful slate quarries had been operating in the area for years.
The legal description of the property read:
Beginning at a Stone a corner of Land of Aaron Pipher thence
by said Aaron Pipher's Land north thirty one degrees west two
hundred and thirty perches to a Stone, thence by land in the
name of John Chalmer and the other land along the Blue
Mountain north fifty nine degrees East fifty five perches to a
post north fifty two degrees East fifty eight perches to a Black
Oak, North seventy five degrees East fifty eight perches to a
Stone thence by land formerly of Peter Kocher South fourteen
and a half degrees East two hundred and thirty perches to a
stone thence by land of John Williams South Sixty degrees west
ninety five perches to the place of Beginning Containing one
hundred and eighty one acres and one hundred and twelve
perches. Being composed of three contiguous pieces or tracts
of land which (while alive) were conveyed . . . unto said
Samuel Pipher ... by Peter Pipher and wife by deed dated
April 17, 1841 . . . the land hereby conveyed is designated as
three lots . . . numbered one, two and Six.
In the deed, Samuel excepted from the sale "all the grain in the
ground with the right to harvest, store and thresh the same upon the
premises using the Barn and Granary for those purposes. ..." All the
straw, however, belonged to the purchasers. Samuel and his family also
reserved the use and occupancy of the buildings on the property until
April 1, 1869. They could use firewood on the premises until April 1,
but Samuel was not to cut any more wood, except for firewood, nor was
he to sell or remove any wood. All the wood left after April 1 belonged
to the buyers. Samuel was also not allowed to remove any manure, as it
was "expressly agreed that the manure now made and that may accumulate
between now and said first day of April is covered by this conveyance to
61. Deed Book C-12, pp. 612-613, indenture of December 18, 1868,
recorded January 8, 1869, NCE.
44
the granters." Two hundred posts and 3,000 rails already cut and in
pieces en the property belonged to Samuel.
The mortgage executed between Samuel and the partners of the slate
company arranged for the payment of $12,500 with interest at a rate of
six percent per year, "from the date [December 18] thereof in manner
following viz; $4,164.00 in one year, $4,167.00 in two years, and
$4,167.00 in three years. ..." The interest payments were to be made
every year on December 18 until the whole principal sum of $25,000 with
CO
interest was paid.
Samuel and Elizabeth Pipher moved near Slateford on property once
settled by the earliest LaBar brothers, where they lived until their
deaths in 1896 and 1889. The couple continued to farm, however, for
Samuel's name appears in both the 1870 and 1880 agricultural censuses.
At Samuel's death a Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, newspaper, The
Jeffersonian, printed a short obituary on March 19, 1896: "Samuel
Pipher, an old resident of Slateford, Northampton county, Pa., died on
Friday morning last, of rheumatism of the heart, aged 82 years. He
leaves five grown-up children." In his will, dated September 17, 1892
and amended January 16, 1896, Samuel left his household goods, utensils
and furniture to his daughter Marietta. He also left a piece of property
with a two-story brick house on the south side of Walnut Street in
Stroudsburg to Marietta and a lot with a two-story frame house on the
west side of Delaware Avenue in Portland, Pennsylvania, to Marietta's son
Frank S. Knerr. All the rest of Samuel's property was to be shared
among his five children — Jeremiah, Peter F., Sarah Jane, Elmira and
62. Ibid., p. 613.
63. Abstract of Mortgage, Mortgage Book, vol. 21, pp. 588-590, Dec.
18, 1868, NCE. Research note found in DEWA park file
"Pennsylvania-Northampton County Land Titles."
45
Marietta. All of these children had received money advances from their
father.
A little more than a month after Samuel's death the town of Portland
was "thrown into a state of great excitement" when a large amount of
money was found on Samuel's property. Just a few days before Samuel's
real and personal property was to be sold at an executors sale, a
carpenter making repairs to a barn lifted a paint can and opened a bag,
expecting to find nails. Instead he found "a mass of bright, glittering
64. The Jeffersonian, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, March 19, 1896; "Last
Will & Testament of Samuel Pipher dec'd" Probated March 18, 1896, File
13933, Registry of Wills, NCE. Samuel's children received the following
cash advances: Jeremiah, $5,390; Peter F., $3,310; Elmira, $945;
Marietta, $1,800; and Sarah Jane, $6,450. The 1874 Beers map shows the
location of Samuel Pipher's home. In an 1885 directory Samuel is listed as
a farmer and resident of Slateford along with his nephew "Emery" or
Emory. Ferris Bros1 Northampton County Directory 1885 (Wilmington,
Delaware: Ferris Bros. 1885), p. 426. In 1870 Samuel Pipher was listed
in the agricultural census as owning 56 acres of improved land and 20
acres of unimproved woodland. His property was worth $8,600 and his
farm implements were valued at $200. The total amount of wages paid
during the year, including the value of board was $630. Samuel owned
two horses, three milch cows and four swine--all worth $400. He raised
200 bushels of winter wheat 200 bushels of rye, 500 bushels of Indian
corn, 300 bushels of oats, 300 bushels of buckwheat, and 200 bushels of
Irish potatoes. Samuel's orchard products were worth $30, and he
produced 30 [tons] hay, 500 [pounds] butter and five [gallons] wine.
The value of his animals slaughtered or sold for slaughter was $280, and
the value of all farm products was $2,650. In 1880 Samuel owned 44
acres of improved land and five acres of woodland and forest. His farm
was worth $4,000 and his livestock was valued at $200. The value of
Samuel's farm products was $1,000. He owned five acres of mown grass
land which produced six tons of hay. He owned two horses, two milch
cows and two other cattle. Two calves were dropped during the year and
Samuel sold two cattle. He produced 300 pounds of butter on his farm in
1879. As of June 1, 1880, Samuel owned three swine and 40 poultry, the
latter produced 250 eggs in 1879. Samuel owned three acres of Indian
corn which produced a crop of 2,100 bushels; one acre of oats which
produced 30 bushels; three acres of rye which yielded 50 bushels and one
acre of wheat which produced 15 bushels. Agricultural Schedules,
Pennsylvania, Federal Decennial Censuses, 1850-1880, Roll 28, 1870,
Microcopy T-1138, National Archives; Agricultural Schedules,
Pennsylvania, Federal Decennial Censuses, 1850-1880, Roll 51, 1880,
Microcopy T-1138, National Archives.
46
gold pieces" worth $2,330. A newspaper account stated that Samuel was
a large stock holder in the Stroudsburg National Bank, but gave no
theories as to the origin of the $10 and $20 gold pieces.
An inventory of Samuel Pipher's estate taken March 19, 1896,
appraised his goods and chattel at $3,491.40. The gold discovered in a
"can" in a "wagon shed" was subsequently added to the appraisement on
July 10, 1896. At the estate sale on April 26, 1896, many agricultural
and household goods were sold in addition to bank shares. The sale
amounted to $2, 070. 29. 66 I
vendue list and inventory.)
fifi
amounted to $2,070.29. (See appendixes 9 and 10 for Samuel Pipher's
A simple land sale in 1868 ended 78 years of a family's ownership of
a piece of farmland which had given strength, offered a livelihood,
produced sweat and perhaps even blasphemous oaths. Pipher descendants
did live on the western tract of Samuel and Christina's property until the
first years of the twentieth century, but the section now known as
Slateford Farm changed its character in 1868. It changed from providing
food to providing slate.
Slaters and Tenants
The New York and Delaware River Slate Company owned Slateford
Farm from 1868 until 1873. The venture evidently was not managed well
and the company's principal stockholders began quarreling among
themselves. Possibly as a result of this in-fighting, rather than any
unproductivity of the quarry, the sheriff of Northampton County, Enos
65. Stroudsburg Daily Times, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, April 18,
1896.
66. "Estate of Samuel Pipher of Upper Mt. Bethel Township deceased,"
Vendue List Filed May 25, 1896, File 13933, Register of Wills, NCE;
"Inventory Estate of Samuel Pipher dec'd" Filed July 13, 1896, File 13933,
Register of Wills, NCE.
47
Werkheiser, seized the farm. One of the original founders of the
company, Julius S. Howell, a dealer in silk goods in Jersey City, had
filed a suit in equity in March 1872 in Easton against the president of the
company, Charles W. Remington of Brooklyn, New York. Howell's suit
also named founders Uzal Cory (Corry) of Englewood, New Jersey, and
Richard H. Stearns of New York City, in addition to stockholders Thomas
G. Groves and William J. Williams, both of New York City. The other
founders, Theodore Howell, Samuel R. Elton, and Richard D. Wilson,
were not named in the suit. The results of the suit are not known, but
by November 1873 the sheriff was ordered by the County Court of
Common Pleas in Northampton County in a writ of levari facias, to take
the 181 acres and 112 perches of land and to levy against the defendants
a debt of $4,645.82 owed to Samuel Pipher. At a public sale on December
27, 1873, the sheriff sold the property to John A. Morison of New York
City for $20,000, he being the highest bidder. (For more information
on this company's quarrying at Slateford see Chapter Four, Slate
Quarrying on Slateford Farm. )
67. Little data is known of the men involved in this quarrying venture.
Trow's New York City Directory for the years 1868 and 1869 list Julius S.
Howell as owning a silk goods business at 412 Broadway, with his home
being in Jersey City. Samuel R. Elton was listed as a broker at 9 Broad
Street, with a home address on Staten Island. Richard D. Wilson was a
clerk at 90 West Street with a home in New Jersey. A Theodore Howell
was listed as a "car man" at 15 Goerch Street and a Theodore P. Howell
was listed as being in "leather" at 79 Beekman Street. It is not known if
either of these men was the Theodore D. Howell of the slate company.
The directory contained no listing for Cory or Stearns. Letter, Jim
Ashton, The New York Historical Society to Sharon A. Brown, September
26, 1984; Equity Docket 2, p. 95, dated March 16, 1872, Prothonotary
Office, NCE; Deed Book H-20, pp. 643-645, sold December 27, 1873,
recorded March 17, 1890, NCE. A writ of levari facias is a common-law
writ of execution for the satisfaction of a judgment debt out of goods and
lands or profits of the lands of the judgment debtor. No records this
company may have produced have been found. Nineteenth century slate
records once located at Lafayette College in Easton have disappeared. No
documentary evidence has as yet been found which either supports or
disputes prevalent belief that the New York and Delaware River Slate
Company's officers used the Pipher farmhouse as an office and/or housing
for quarry workers.
48
John A. Morison was a wealthy New Yorker who apparently ran the
farm in absentia for its quarrying, and possibly tenancy, income.
Morison paid taxes on the quarry from 1874 to 1879, after which time
active quarrying probably ceased. Trow's New York City Directory lists
a John Morison for the years 1874-1877 as being in the shipping business.
However, this Morison appears as John C. in the 1879 directory. John
A. Morison is listed only for the years 1889-1890, and 1890-1891. No
business or business address was listed, but his home was at 173 West
45th. Morison owned the property until his death in 1897 at age 71 and
CO
his heirs held on to it until 1913. (See Chapter Four, Slate Quarrying
on Slateford Farm for more information on quarrying under Morison's
ownership. )
Tenants did work the farm for at least a few years during Morison
family ownership. Emory Pipher's brother Peter H. married Effie Ann
Bartron, whose brother Ananias lived on the Samuel Pipher farm for a
few years after 1900. This was at the same time that the last of the
Pipher children were being born on the Frederick Pipher estate to the
west. Ananias and his wife Matilda Brewer Bartron lived on Slateford
Farm as tenants and the property was "very well kept." In 1970 Matilda
Bartron's niece Mary Pittenger stated that the Bartrons farmed the entire
acreage, more than 181 acres, of the property. She also remembered her
aunt boarding quarry workers from the quarry "down below the summer
house [cabin?] that was across from the old farm house" around 1900 to
1910. The Bartrons also might have made money selling milk, butter and
eggs. Mary Pittenger remembered a woodshed and chicken house being
behind the farmhouse and a garden which was placed between the house
68. Elizabeth D. Walters, research note, March 19, 1969, DEWA park
files: "Pennsylvania-Northampton County Land Titles"; Letter, Ashton to
Brown, September 26, 1984; Deed Book B-41, pp. 365-367 indenture of
September 26, 1913, recorded October 6, 1913, NCE; Trow's New York
City Directory, vol. ciii (New York: The Trow City Directory Company,
For the year ending May 1, 1890), p. 1415; Trow's New York City
Directory, vol. civ (New York: The Trow City Directory Company, for
the year ending May 1, 1890) p. 885.
49
and the barn. Slate walks led to the spring house, summer house and
barn,
house.
barn, and a fence ran around the yard between the house and summer
69
In his will, dated September 4, 1885, John Morison left his personal
belongings and $5,000 yearly income from his estate to his sister Jane M.
Coffin. He also left $15,000 to be invested and the profit thereof to be
used by a grandnephew. Morison's executors, his sister Jane, nephew
Robert S. Morison and friend William G. DeWitt, had the power to sell and
dispose of his real estate "upon such terms as they shall deem proper."
In April 1899 Morison's estate was appraised and the "Farm situated in
Upper Mount Bethel Township consisting of about 180 acres upon which a
Slate Quarry is located" was valued at $3,500. As executor, Robert S.
Morison sold the property to Edwin G. Reynolds on September 26, 1913.
Reynolds bought the 181 acres and 112 perches from Morison at a
private sale "for the sum of One Dollar and other good and valuable
considerations. ..." He and his wife Icie were renting farmers in 1900
in Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey. That year's census
69. An inconsistency exists between Mary Pittenger's remembrances and
those of Mildred Bartow McMillen whose grandfather was Emory Pipher.
Mary stated her aunt, Matilda Bartron, lived at Slateford Farm "many,
many years." Mildred McMillen stated the Bartrons lived at the farm from
1900 to 1906, that they had moved by 1907 and were living in Mt. Bethel
by 1918. She remembered the Slateford homestead being empty from 1906
until the 1920s. Mildred McMillen had no recollection of anyone living on
the farm during the 1910s. Additionally, Mary Pittenger stated that 20 to
30 slate workers quarried on the property, but John A. Morison was not
assessed for the quarry after 1880. It is not known who these slaters
were working for and for how tang. Perhaps Morison rented out the
quarry. Interview with Mary Pittenger, Slateford Farm, September 30,
1970. DEWA historian Albert Dillahunty conducted the interview and the
transcript is located in park files. Interview with Mildred and E. Lee
McMillen, Easton , Pennsylvania, September 26, 1984.
70. "Will of John A. Morison" September 4, 1885 proven January 15,
1898, Register of Wills, NCE; "Estate of John Morison" April 17, 1899,
Collateral Inheritance Book 2, p. 7, Register of Wills, NCE. Deed Book
B-41, pp. 365-367, indenture of September 26, 1913 recorded October 6,
1913, NCE.
50
revealed that Edwin was born in October 1851, Icie in January 1856, and
they had been married 20 years. They had two daughters and a
son--Maude M., born March 1882 in Maryland; Eve H., born January 1886
in Maryland; and Ned, born May 1891 in New Jersey. Both Edwin and
Icie were born in New York, as were their parents. In the 1905 census
the Reynolds were listed as owning a farm which was mortgaged. In the
1920 census Edwin was listed as a farmer who owned his own farm. This
seems to indicate that the Reynolds were absentee owners who may have
purchased the property for speculative or rental income purposes,
although it is not known what sort of deal was made with Robert S.
Morison on a purchase price. Furthermore, nothing is known of any
renters on the property after the Bartrons and it is thought the Slateford
71
Farm homestead stood empty through the 1910s.
Edwin and Icie Reynolds sold their property in Northampton County
to Charles M. Munsch on May 5, 1924, for $3,000. The description of the
property remained the same as it had since the sheriff's sale in 1873.
Munsch made many changes on the property. He built tennis courts,
stuccoed the main farmhouse with cement, made changes to the cabin,
built the Louis Cyr house, built an ice house, and built a concrete slab
which spans the old barn foundations. In the fall of 1929 Munsch, who
was from Alsace-Lorraine, met Louis Cyr, a French-Canadian from
Quebec, in a church in the Bronx. The two spoke French and Munsch
72
hired Cyr to be his caretaker at Slateford Farm.
71. Deed Book B-71, pp. 365-367, indenture of September 26, 1913,
recorded October 6, 1913, NCE. Letter, Bette Barker, Division of
Archives and Records Management, Department of State, State of New
Jersey, to Sharon A. Brown, October 3, 1984; Letter, Clark Beck,
Special Collections and Archives, Rutgers, the State University of New
Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey to Sharon A. Brown, September 26,
1984. Interview with Mildred McMillen, Easton, Pennsylvania, September
26, 1984.
72. Deed Book A-69, pp. 566-567, indenture of May 5, 1924, recorded
December 27, 1938, NCE; Interview with Charlotte Cyr Jewell, Portland,
Pennsylvania, August 29, 1984. Penelope Batcheler stated that Munsch
might have rented the farm from Reynolds and applied his rent towards
51
Louis Cyr had migrated from Quebec to Maine to Hartford,
Connecticut, working various jobs. In New York City, Cyr was working
in the cement business when he met Munsch. Cyr and his family lived on
the Cyr farmstead and took care of Slateford Farm from 1929 until
government purchase of the property in 1967. Charles Munsch visited
and spent time at the farm, as did his son Frank and daughter Alice. He
would often visit on weekends and spend two to three months at the farm
during the summers. It is not known if Charles Munsch paid Louis Cyr
wages for his work, but Cyr supported himself and his family off the
land. He raised calves and worked construction jobs for additional
income. Louis Cyr's wife Lottie taught school.
Charles Munsch became very involved with the local community. He
bought land in Portland, Pennsylvania, donated land to help build a
Catholic church, and opened a local coffin factory.
Munsch was 6'2" and had a moustache and dark hair. Marie Munsch
was a very petite blond. Alice was an amateur photographer and was
well-educated and well-spoken. Frank took over his father's New York
City drug store business after his father's death, but he soon sold it.
He worked as a salesman.
Right after World War II Frank Munsch contacted Alcoholics
Anonymous and arranged to have rehabilitating alcoholics work at
Slateford Farm. They would arrive two at a time, and Louis Cyr would
put them to work for seven to eight weeks. About 15 to 16 men worked
at Slateford Farm over the years.
On May 5, 1936, Charles Munsch and his wife Marie sold the farm to
Alice for $1,800. Munsch died the next year in the Cyr house. Alice
72. (cont.) the purchase price. This interpretation is based on an
account book kept by Munsch which includes work on the E. G. Reynolds
Farm in the 1920s. If this is so, the fact was not mentioned in the deed
of sale. Batcheler, HSR, pp. 15-16, 211-214.
52
continued to visit on occasional weekends and would spend the month of
August on the farm. She spent the rest of the year working in New
York City. Louis and Lottie Cyr continued to farm the land under Alice's
ownership as they had her parents'. (See illustrations 14-24 for farm
photographs 1930s to 1950s, taken by Alice Munsch.) This arrangement
continued until the farm property was purchased as part of the
acquisition process for the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
Louis Cyr and his family continued to live on the farm and Louis worked
for the National Park Service until his death in 1971. Since that year the
Cyr's daughter Charlotte Cyr Jewell and her family have remained at the
73
Cyr farmstead and farm the property under a special use permit.
Alice M. Munsch sold 169.38 acres to the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers on September 16, 1966. This was 12.32 acres less than she
had acquired from her parents in 1936. One of the parcels she sold was
4.52 acres to Fred W. Keifaber, who subsequently built a house on the
74
property. This land was also purchased by the corps in 1966. Since
the National Park Service's acquisition, Slateford Farm has been used in
the park's interpretive program. (See historical base map 4 for 1985
Slateford Farm existing conditions.)
Interpretation focuses not only on agriculture in the Delaware
Valley-Delaware Water Gap region, but also on the integral story of slate
quarrying in Northampton County. Around 1970 a slater's shanty was
purchased in Bangor, Pennsylvania, by park staff and placed next to the
73. Interview with Charlotte Cyr Jewell, Portland, Pennsylvania, August
29, 1984 and May 1, 1985. Deed Book F-67, pp. 241-242, indenture of
May 5, 1936, recorded January 27, 1937, NCE; Charles Munsch's obituary
appeared in the New York Times on May 18, 1937. It read: "Funeral
services were held yesterday at Portland Pa., for Charles M. Munsch, a
partner in the firm of Munsch & Co., owners and operators of the drug
store in. the Carlyle, Seventy-sixth Street and Madison Avenue. He died
in Portland last Saturday of a heart attack at the age of 69. His widow,
a son Francis K., and a daughter, Alice, survive."
74. Deeds, Tracts 121 and 122, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation
Area, vol. 300, p. 2, NCE.
53
wood shed. Interpretation at the site occurs both in the farmhouse and
in the shanty as seasonal rangers interpret both agricultural methods and
slate splitting techniques. At one time in the 1970s consideration was
given to developing the site into a "living historical farm," but this idea,
even nationally, has generally lost favor. The existing buildings at the
site—Samuel Pipher's cabin, Peter Pipher's farmhouse and spring house,
the woodshed (circa late 1800s) and slate shanty--along with the farm
fields and water-filled quarry pit, are interpreted for the story they
reveal about human activity at Slateford Farm. From the Penns to the
Munsches and Cyrs, Slateford Farm's history is bound not only to its
geography and geology but to its human inhabitants as well.
54
CHAPTER THREE
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES
Early Pennsylvania was, in many respects, the prototype of
North American development. Its style of life presaged the
mainstream of nineteenth-century America; its conservative
defense of liberal individualism, its population of mixed national
and religious origins, its dispersed farms, county seats, and
farm-service villages, and its mixed crop and livestock
agriculture served as models for much of the rural Middle
West.
James T. Lemon's assessment of Pennsylvania agriculture's
importance and influence can serve as the general context within which to
place Slateford Farm's history. The farm's buildings and land existed as
the central focus in several farming families' lives for nearly 200 years.
The Piphers and Morrises and the various tenant farmers all possess
individual histories connected to the farm, and these histories were
explored in the second chapter of this text. The Slateford Farm's
importance, however, also fits into the more general context of
agricultural history. This chapter is a wider view of the farm. It is an
examination of both German agricultural characteristics, since the Piphers
may have been of German heritage and since German farming
characteristics were so different from other ethnic groups, and the
history of Pennsylvania agricultural development and change. (See
illustration 13 for German distribution.) Not only does Slateford Farm
possess historical importance in a strict personal, local and regional
sense, but because of Lemon's assessment of Pennsylvania agriculture,
the farm serves as a prototype for general American agricultural
development.
German Farming Characteristics
The agricultural history of the state of Pennsylvania provides
one of the finest examples of the significance of cultural
1. James T. Lemon, The Best Poor Man's Country, p. xiii.
55
considerations in farming enterprises. No other colony recieved
so large a representation of different European ethnic groups as
Pennsylvania. No other colony witnessed such unlike attacks
upon the frontier or such unlike techniques of farming and
making a living. While the various ethnic groups made rather
drastic adjustments in their agricultural, social and economic
life in becoming Americans,, cultural differences persisted and
are discernable to this day.
Walter M. Kollmorgen's assessment of Pennyslvania's ethnic and
farming heritage can serve as a useful introduction to a general
description of Germans and their farming techniques. The Germans and
German-Swiss who came to Pennsylvania immigrated for the most part from
the middle and upper Rhineland area of Europe, which was, by 1871,
included within the national boundaries of Germany. They were almost all
Protestant, predominantly Lutheran, with other sectarian groups included
such as Amish, Dunkers, Mennonites, Moravians and Schwenkfelders. As
these people arrived in America they brought their cultural attitudes and
practices with them. Deeply held folkways were passed on from
generation to generation, and even though these beliefs and practices
were modified by life in America, they remained, especially in rural
areas, as long as the ethnic group retained its integrity. When we look
at Northampton County Germans, and the Piphers in particular, we need
to consider not only the tools they used or the houses they built, but
3
their "ideals, motives, and objectives" as well.
Religion was a central focus in German lives. Active practice of
religious belief aided in the formation of German character; "it would
4
make for stability, sobriety, and industry." Work was considered a
2. Ralph Wood, ed., The Pennsylvania Germans (Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1942), II. "The Pennsylvania
German Farmer," by Walter M. Kollmorgen, p. 29.
3. Ibid., pp. 29-30; A folkway is a way of thinking, feeling, or acting
which is common to a people or a social group.
4. Leo A. Bressler, "Agriculture Among the Germans in Pennsylvania
During the Eighteenth Century," Pennsylvania History XXII no. 2 (April
1955): 106.
56
part of a religious life. According to Leo A. Bressler, "A wise Creator
had constructed the earth so that it would supply the wants of all men by
their labor."
Another consideration is that most of the German immigrants,
one-third of Pennsylvania's population by 1775, had been peasant farmers
and had practiced intensive farming and animal husbandry just to survive
on their small holdings in the Old Country. Ancestors of the immigrants
had worked the same soil for generations and "had acquired reputations
p.
as husbandmen second to none in Europe." New World Germans thus
possessed a farming heritage consisting of "hard labor for a bare
existence," limited wants and simple tastes.
Germans also tended to accumulate land which they handed down to
the next generation. They settled permanently, viewed the farms as
"legacies," and were thus prone to improve their property and conserve
the soil. A comparison of German and Scotch-Irish farmers illustrates
this characteristic. Pennsylvania's better limestone lands were first
settled by the Scotch-Irish "frontier blazers" in the colonial period. The
Scotch- Irish, however, moved from one area to another and gave up their
lands to the Germans who entrenched themselves. The English-speaking
inhabitants were almost completely displaced by the Germans, and this is
especially true in Northampton County on the limestone lands, or "the
barrens." The predominance of Germans on good land in Southeastern
Pennsylvania is not because they got there first, but because they
displaced the original settlers. Furthermore, the Scotch- Irish were noted
for "indolence and unsystematic farming" while the Germans were
o
characterized as possessing perseverance and industry.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., 105.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., 107; Kollmorgen, "German Farmer," pp. 31-32,
57
The farms of southeastern Pennsylvania were moderately large
compared to those of northern farmers. According to Leo A. Bressler,
German farm size ranged between 150 and 200 acres, about half of which
was cleared. Most farmers cultivated plots smaller than 100 acres, but
farms could be found of 300-600 acres. Walter M. Kollmorgen wrote that
during the frontier and post-frontier period the farms averaged 100-300
acres. It was considered essential to have acreage in woodland and
woodland pasture, and acreage in fallow. Kollmorgen asserted that
German land holdings remained small and Bressler supported this
generalization: "Lack of efficient tools, transportation difficulties,
scarcity of markets, and the problem of securing labor placed a definite
9
limit upon the number of acres that could be utilized." Samuel Pipher's
391 1/4-acre farm in 1790, then, was larger than average in that time
period.
The Pennsylvania Germans thus acquired reputations of industry and
frugality which were discernable in their agricultural practices. A
conservative attitude went hand-in-hand with traditional agriculture as
can be seen in Eli Bowen's description of German farmers in 1852:
Farming is, in fact, throughout Pennsylvania, little less
than systematic laboi — well organized, it is true; but still only
a monotonous routine of physical toil, too seldom relieved by
mental exercise of enjoyment. This is unfortunate. It is the
result of old established prejudices, deeply-rooted in our
German population, who, resisting every modern innovation,
hold fast to the time-honored principles, precepts and examples
of their forefathers, and regard it as a moral and social duty to
'follow in their footsteps.' They, therefore, plough, plant, and
reap, pretty much in the old way, without deviating to the
right or left, but by industry, frugality, and close attention to
their affairs, generally gather a competency, which is finally
9. Henry Glassie, Pattern jn_ the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern
United States (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968), p.
192; Bressler, "Agriculture," 108; Kollmorgen, "German Farmer," p. 34.
58
distributed amongst their children, who in turn travel over the
same beaten track of agricultural life.
It would be false to believe, however, that the Germans failed to
adopt modern agricultural methods which developed. Henry Glassie
believed "The conservatism of the Mid-Atlantic farmer was tempered by
success. Only where it continued to be practical did his material remain
1 1
traditional." Frugality and hard work still characterize German farmers
but they have embraced the changes brought by the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. "He [the Mid-Atlantic farmer] has retained those
aspects of his folk culture which do not block his progress, so that until
World War I the buildings he planned were still traditional and today he is
apt to hold beliefs about planting and treat the weather proverbially, but
his tools and buildings are now as modern as those of the northern
* .,12
farmer. "
When Pennsylvania was first settled by Europeans, more than 98
percent of its land was covered by forest. German farmers cleared
"Penn's Woods" in a manner different from the British. They did not
girdle or belt the trees and wait for their death, rather, the Germans cut
the trees down and burned them. Then they cleared the underbrush and
pulled the stumps; actions which prepared a field for use by the next
13
year.
10. Eli Bowen, The Pictorial Sketch-book of Pennsylvania Or, its
scenery, internal improvements, resources, and agriculture, popularly
described by EH Bowen (Philadelphia: W. W. Smith^ 1854), p. 33, Also
cited in Glassie, Folk Culture, pp. 193-194.
11. Glassie, Folk Culture, pp. 194-195.
12. Ibid., p. 198; Glassie offers the Amish as an example, for they
adopted the four-year plan of crop rotation in the early 1800s. Because
that plan works, the Amish have not adopted modern soil conservation
methods, pp. 198-199.
13. Stevenson Whitcomb Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture and Country
Life 1640-1840, vol. I, (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania
59
The Germans were further distinguished from their neighbors by the
care they provided their livestock. Barns and stables sheltered cows,
horses, sheep and hogs. Animals were not allowed to roam freely or to
forage. Large trees were sometimes retained in pastures to provide shade
for animals and by the 1770s fields were being fenced to keep stock from
wandering. Oxen were used as draft animals, sheep provided wool for
home spinning, hogs supplied meat for both home and market
consumption, and milk cows were the source of milk and cheese. Poultry,
14
of course, supplied families with eggs.
Manure was an added benefit of owning livestock because it was used
to fertilize land. Because the Germans kept their animals penned they
could collect the manure for spreading. Prior to the Revolution the only
artificial fertilizer the German farmers used was lime, even though its use
was not widespread until after 1800. Gypsum was used as early as the
1770s, but it was imported from Europe and was expensive. Its use was
not extensive until after 1800. German farmers were not quick to use
any fertilizers other than manure, but they were at least aware of
15
fertilizers' benefits, and even more so than other farmers.
An early remedy for worn-out soil was crop rotation. Pennsylvania
German farmers used natural grasses and meadows to restore soil fertility
before the Revolutionary War period and cultivated grasses and clovers
thereafter. Lancaster County's German-Swiss Mennonites were
particularly known for their grasses grown on irrigated meadows. Within
13. (cont.) Historical and Museum Commission, 1950 reprint ed., 1950),
I: 2; Bressler, "Agriculture," 114; Kollmorgen, "German Farmer," p. 34.
For more information on Pennsylvania forests, see "A Chronology of
Events in Pennsylvania Forestry Showing Things as They Happened to
Penn's Woods," Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Office of Resources
Management, Bureau of Forestry, 1975, pamphlet, 34 pages.
14. Bressler, "Agriculture," 115-116; Kollmorgen, "German Farmer," pp.
42-44.
15. Bressler, "Agriculture," 117-18; Kollmorgen, "German Farmer," p.
37; Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture I: 123-127.
60
a few years soil-building crops such as red clover and timothy were used
in a rotation program. Various systems of rotating crops were used
before clover was extensively grown, but the general plan involved three-
or four-year rotation programs. No uniform practice was common to all
Germans, and they depended largely on fallowing, but they tended not to
be guilty of growing the same crop yearly until the soil was worn out.
The four-year rotation program, still popular in southeastern
Pennsylvania, in the 1940s, has been used since 1800. It involves
growing corn, oats, wheat and hay (clover and timothy mixed). Near
Allentown, Pennsylvania, in Lehigh County, a four-year program
consisted of wheat, oats or corn or buckwheat, clover, and clover and
plowing to sow. The practice of rotating crops became generally adopted
by 1820. 16
Stevenson W. Fletcher aptly described the intricacies of crop
rotation:
The farm practice which transformed Pennsylvania
agriculture most of all was the adoption of soil-conserving
rotations. This was made possible by the free use of gypsum
and lime. These, in turn, made it possible to grow red clover
on upland fields, in rotation with grains, instead of only in
irrigated meadows. Finally, the production of more clover and
grass made it possible for farmers to keep more livestock and
have more manure to apply to the land. Thus was forged the
golden chain of a permanent agriculture, the links of which are
crop rotations, lime, clover7 and grass, livestock and manure
with supplemental fertilizer.
The Pennsylvania Germans not only rotated crops but raised a wide
variety of them. They did not rely on a single crop but raised corn,
rye, barley, oats, buckwheat and wheat, which became the main cash
crops. Meadows were irrigated and orchards and gardens were carefully
cultivated. Remnants of a lime kiln on Slateford Farm are evidence that
the farmland was fertilized and cared foi — most likely by the Piphers and
later owners.
16. Bressler, "Agriculture," 119-21; Kollmorgen, "German Farmer," pp
36-38; Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture I: 127-132.
17. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture I: 127.
61
During the colonial period wheat was the most common and profitable
crop. Pennsylvania wheat fed the armies of the Revolutionary War and
the title "granary of the colonies" lasted until supplanted by states
farther west. At this time wheat was produced by age-old methods: the
grain was cut with sickles, hand bound into sheaves and cured in barns.
Flails were used for threshing. Farmers and their families removed the
chaff by throwing the grain into the air, but horses were used by the
end of the Revolutionary War to trample out the grain. Despite this slow
method of production flour was a principal export. Pennsylvania Germans
1 8
commonly produced between 20 and 30 bushels to the acre.
Practically every German farm had an orchard. Apple and peach
orchards were most common, but cherries and pears were also grown.
The number of trees ranged from 100-600 trees. The fruit was dried;
cider, vinegar and distilled brandy produced; and surpluses marketed.
Grapes were grown but attempts to make wine were not totally successful.
Samuel Pipher's 1812 will mentions apple trees being on his farm
property.
Gardens were also found on nearly every German farm. Vegetables
fed not only farming families but also inhabitants of the nearby cities
through truck farming. Quite a variety of produce was grown: beets,
parsnips, onions, parsley, beans, red peppers, lettuce, pumpkins,
squash, potatoes, turnips, cabbages, tomatoes, sweet corn, celery, egg
plant, spinach, melons, radishes, peas, carrots, cucumbers, cauliflower
and asparagus. Women usually tended the gardens.
Flax was widely grown as it was used in the home manufacturing of
clothing. Farm women operated • looms and spinning wheels to produce
cloth for their family's use. The labor intensive processing of flax was
18. Bressler, "Agriculture," 34-35, 127; Kollmorgen, "German Farmer,"
pp. 122-123; Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture I: 143-153.
62
later supplanted by the cheaper manufacturing of cotton cloth. Women
19
also produced wool and linen textile materials in their homes.
Farm animals were well cared for by German farmers. Unlike other
colonists, the Germans built large, well-constructed barns to shelter their
animals. Horses and cows were fed well to produce more labor and more
milk than those animals not provided for as well. Oxen were used as
draft animals, milk cows provided cheese and milk, and surplus animals
were slaughtered on the farm for meat. German farmers also kept hogs,
poultry and sheep.
Thrifty and hard-working are only two of the many adjectives used
to describe the Pennsylvania Germans as they conducted their lives on
their farms. All of the care shown animals and crops stemmed from their
belief in "agriculture as a way of life as well as a way to make a living."
German families worked together on the farms as closely knit economic
units. Wives contributed in both the house and in the fields at harvest.
Women also cared for the chickens and cows, and took charge of
processing the milk products. Children were put to work so they would
not become "lazy," which in the German tradition was sinful, and children
were often not sent to school for fear of idleness. Any wages earned by
children were turned over to parents and often saved or invested in
i m 20
land.
It is apparent that despite the generally held view that colonial
agriculture in the eighteenth century was poor, the Pennsylvania Germans
proved to be exceptions. Their agricultural practices were superior to
those of their neighbors in terms of animal care, crop-rotation,
crop-diversity, and use of fertilizers and irrigation.
19. Bressler, "Agriculture," 124-125, Kollmorgen, "German Farmer," pp
38-39; Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture I: 226-228.
20. Kollmorgen, "German Farmer," pp. 39,42-43, 51-52.
63
German farms were noted even in their own day as being more
efficient and more productive than those tilled by other ethnic groups.
The Piphers, throughout their 78 years of ownership of their farm,
probably practiced some, if not all, of these progressive farming
techniques. Even though noted for their conservatism, these farming
families adopted farming practices which brought them prosperity. The
Piphers were probably no exception.
Farm Building Characteristics
When Samuel Pipher bought 391 1/4 acres of farmland from the
Morrises in 1790 he may have acquired a house, outhouses, a barn, a
garden or an orchard. Because no further information is known
21
concerning the said "Plantation and Tract of Land" in the deed,
including possible construction and location details, it is necessary to
examine different farm building characteristics. Structures which may
have existed on the property might have been built by either Amos
Strettell or the Morrises or employees in their hire, and could have been
of early English style as opposed to the vernacular Pipher-era farmhouse
which does not display any strong ethnic influences in its construction.
Knowing general characteristics of English farm structures will provide
clues as to the appearance of the buildings which may have stood on the
property when Samuel Pipher made his purchase. By inference,
knowledge can be gained of other structures of possible German
construction which may have been built during Pipher ownership and have
subsequently disappeared, such as the barn and granary referred to in
the 1868 deed of sale.
In a 1966 report on the study of the cultural backgrounds of
Pennsylvanian homesteads, Robert C. Bucher identified basic elements of
various cultures and distinguished different types of homesteads:
21. Deed Book, G-1 , p. 275, indenture of April 17, 1790, recorded June
22, 1790, NCE.
64
The Holland Dutch and English farms have bottom barns (i.e.,
those not built against banks), and the Welsh and English
houses have stone chimneys. The better to distinguish between
those houses originating in the British Isles and the Continental
European houses the observer may note the location of the front
doors. In the former type of house the door is in the center
hall thereby denoting the style of the English manor-house. On
the other hand, the door of the Central European house is
always off-center, near one end of the house, and leads
directly into the kitchen. This latter type of dwelling is of
peasant origin and is associated with the typical three-room
first floor plan notable of the more humble European houses;
i.e., kitchen, living room and downstairs-sleeping room (called
in German the kiche, stube and kammer. )
Bucher also stated that the "original European and the early
Pennsylvania-Dutch houses had a central fireplace, built slightly
off-center and facing into the kitchen." The English and Welsh houses
were built with gable fireplaces with a chimney at each gable end. Some
of the Continental European stone houses, however, were discovered to
have gable fireplaces.
Common features of eastern Pennsylvania's colonial farmsteads
included the site of the dwelling being located near a spring; a road
separating the house from the barn; the garden being located at the front
or rear doors; and the orchard, generally containing apple trees, being
planted on a slope near the buildings. A pig sty was generally between
the house and barn, a stone wall ran in front of the main house, and the
house's living room was oriented toward the sun. Barns were located so
23
that barnyard drainage would flow into, and fertilize, meadows.
22. Robert C. Bucher, "The Cultural Backgrounds of Our Pennsylvania
Homesteads," Bulletin of the Historical Society of Montgomery County,
Pa. XV no. 3 (Fall 1966): 23.
23. Ibid., 23-26. There is dispute over which direction the barns
generally faced. Bucher, writing in 1966, stated they faced the south to
obtain warmth from the sun. John K. Heyl, writing 10 years earlier,
acknowledged the "theory" that the barns were placed with their stable,
barnyard front towards the south, but he asserted that a trip through
65
Walter M. Kollmorgen also stated that German houses were
distinguishable from the English by the central chimney. Non-Germans
usually built chimneys at each end of their home's roofs. Heating stoves
were introduced into the colonies by the Germans. Stoves were more
efficient than fireplaces, used less wood, and according to a contemporary
observer, a German family could perform more work because their homes
24
were more comfortably heated.
Samuel Pipher might have built a barn on the property before his
death in 1812. It is not known if the old barn, situated to the south of
the main house is a Strettell-Morris structure or if it was built by the
Piphers. Regardless, barns were very significant structures and were
often built of brick and stone in the middle colonies. John K. Heyl
asserted that the "functional simple barn structure dominated each farm
compound and overshadowed all the other structures, including the
25
homestead." Eighteenth and nineteenth century barns were built in
direct response to farmers' needs. In Pennsylvania, "the combination of
ledge or fieldstone, quarried, dressed and laid-up in lime mortar with
wood framing of hardwood timber, felled, trimmed and joined produced the
23. (cont.) the countryside would reveal barns facing any direction.
Other considerations were the placement of a public road, the ease of
approach, or the placement of the house. However, "the general
southeasterly slope of the whole terrain in Eastern Pennsylvania,
established a recurring pattern." Heyl did not discount the source of
water as a factor in determining the barn and house location. Charles H.
Dornbusch and John K. Heyl, Pennsylvania German Barns The
Pennsylvania German Folklore Society vol. 21 (Allentown, Pennsylvania:
Schlechter's, 1956), pp. XXII-XXIII.
24. Kollmorgen, "German Farmer-," p. 41. For further information on
Pennsylvania farmhouses see: Aymar Embury II, "Pennsylvania
Farmhouses Examples of Rural Dwellings of a Hundred Years Ago,"
Architectural Record XXX (November 1911): 475-585 and G. Edwin
Brumbaugh, "Pennsylvania German Colonial Architecture," Part II,
Pennsylvania German Society Proceedings at Harrisburg, Pa. October 17,
1930 and Papers Prepared for the Society, vol. XLI, (Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania: Published by the Society, 1933), pp. 5-60. Both of these
texts discuss individual structures and contain information on stone
buildings.
25. Dornbusch and Heyl, German Barns, p. 11.
66
remarkable structure which was to become a keynote for two hundred
years of the American farm community." A barn not only provided
storage for hay and straw, but was a granary and stable space for farm
animals.
At the end of the eighteenth century log barns were more numerous
than any other type of barn. They existed in every form
. . . from the level structure to those on two slightly different
levels, to the 'Sweitzer' barn with its great forebay. The log
barns show in their fabric also every type of worked log from
the simple felled tree to the wall of logs dressed only on two
sides, to the wall carefully joined and filled with stone and
strawed lime-mortar, to the four-sided dressed timber, mortised
into a vertical corner post with face of member against member,
making a solid barrier. . . . Since these log barns were often
the oldest farm structures in the compound, and since they
were usually superseded by a larger stone barn, they tended to
be relegated to secondary uses and neglected. The ultimately
perishable nature of wood of which they are constructed also
accounts for their progressive disappearance. Early log
buildings often served at first for the housing of both man and
beast--a practice stiU-, common in dairy-farm areas of Germany
and the Netherlands.
Unlike the Quakers or Welsh who built towns along Pennsylvania's
surveyed roads, John K. Heyl stated the Germans followed and settled
along Indian trails near neighboring Germans. The oldest forms of barns
could be found along these trails on the limestone hills and ridges, and
along the trails which entered the river gaps or "tats." These log barns
were also usually built on an irregular site, were multi-level, and were
28
numerous in areas where the Pennsylvania Germans predominated.
The cantilever or overhanging forebay type of barns are related to
medieval structures in the "uplands of the Rhenish Palatinate and the
26. Ibid., p. 1.
27. Ibid., pp. XIV-XV.
28. Ibid., p. XVI.
67
shoulder borderland of the Alpine heights of Europe." A heavy, expertly
trimmed, fitted and pegged timber skeleton provided support and
determined the barn's shape, whether it was made of timber and boarding
or of quarried stone and mortar. These barns were of two types; "the
'Sweitzer' or Swiss barn with its extending, cantilevered vorbau or
forebay and the barn with the flanking gable walls which greatly
29
strengthen the outer corners of such an overhanging structure." The
"Sweitzer" barn was widely distributed in the mid-eighteenth century and
examples, at least in the mid-1950s, could still be found "from
Northampton County against the Delaware River" to the Maryland
30
border. Eventually the "Sweitzer" barns were adopted by English and
Scotch- Irish settlers and became common features on Pennsylvania
31
farms.
Another important feature on Pennsylvania farms was the
springhouse. Springs supplied cool water and in many instances
determined the location of other farm buildings. The springhouse was
often built over the spring or nearby. These structures served several
purposes: milk, cream, butter, cheese and meat were stored in them as
well as fruits and vegetables.
It was usually dark inside the springhouse as there were few or no
windows. A wooden or stone shelf generally extended around several of
a room's sides, and benches provided workspace. Early structures had
roofs of red tiles but more common roofing materials included shingles and
29. Ibid., pp. XVII-XVIII
30. Ibid., p. XVIII.
31. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture I: 82. Bressler, "Agriculture,"
108; The Heyl text contains excellent descriptions of barn framing; types
of stone walls, including mentioning the "lodge slates and shale stones of
the Blue Mountain townships;" roof shapes, styles of painting and
decoration and types of vents.
68
32
slate. Trees next to the springhouse provided shade. Peter Pipher's
springhouse fits this general description.
Just as important to farming families were fences, which served to
keep livestock penned and prevented crop destruction. It is not known
how much, if any, fencing existed on the farm property when Samuel
Pipher purchased it from the Morrises, although his grandson Samuel
stockpiled posts and split rails on the farm in 1868. First settlers
devoted their time to clearing land, producing food and constructing
shelter. Building fences was not a priority task. By the time of the
Revolution, however, German farmers were building them to protect both
33
animals and crops.
Brush fences served temporary purposes as did felled timber and
stump fences. Other more permanent fences included log, stone pile and
stone wall. The materials for the fences came from the land, which had
to be cleared before it could be cultivated. The stone wall fences were
set up without mortar, needed little or no maintenance and were durable.
Stone pile fences, most likely built by the Piphers, still stand on
Slateford Farm.
Another early fence was the stake and rider or zig-zag fence.
Although not much time was needed to erect, this type of fence, a lot of
wood was required. A similar fence, but located closer to the ground
and built with thinner wood, was the worm or snake fence. Variations of
these types could be found in different regions of Pennsylvania. These
fences were almost completely replaced in the nineteenth century by post
and rail fences, which required more time and labor to build but used
less space and timber. Holes had to be dug, the posts placed in line,
32. Amos Long Jr., "Springs and Springhouses, " Pennsylvania Folklife
11, no. 1 (Spring 1960): 40, 42.
33. Amos Long Jr., "Fences in Rural Pennsylvania," Pennsylvania
Folklife 12 no. 2 (Summer 1961): 30; Bressler, "Agriculture," 115.
69
and the rails fitted- -al I of which required hard labor. Fences made of
34
chestnut, cedar and locust were the most durable.
Fences which enclosed houses and gardens, as opposed to fields,
were the pale, picket or clapboard fences. The pickets were usually
sawn at a sawmill and were nailed to rails attached to posts. These
35
whitewashed fences were usually an attractive addition to a farmstead.
Fences, barns, springhouses and farmhouses are all structures once
standing or still extant on the Slateford Farm property. It is not known
how many fences, outbuildings or even houses were built on the farm,
only to disappear during the land's nearly 200-year history of human
inhabitation. Descriptions of general house, barn and fence types
common to different ethnic groups in eighteenth and nineteenth century
Pennsylvania are the only sources available at this point which provide
information on the structures. Comparative data from Hubert G.
Schmidt's agricultural history of Hunterdon, New Jersey, and James T.
Lemon's study of the agricultural practices of national groups in
eighteenth century southeastern Pennsylvania (primarily Lancaster and
Chester counties) can also be used to gain an understanding of the
general pattern of farming and styles of farm structures which may be
applicable to Northampton County. Until further knowledge is gained of
Amos Strettell's and the Morrises' activities, and of the Piphers1 early
34. Long, "Fences," 30-34; Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture I: 85-86;
Glassie, "Folk Culture," p. 226. John K. Heyl also mentioned settlers
clearing farms and setting up splitrail "zig zag" fences where fields
adjoined those of a neighbor. "German Barns," p. XVI.
35. Long, "Fences," 35. Long's article contains much detail on the
different fence construction techniques, discusses preparation of the
timber used and has photographs of several of the fence styles.
36. See James T. Lemon's The Best Poor Man's Country and Hubert G.
Schmidt, Rural Hunterdon An Agricultural History. (Westport,
Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1972). For further
information on the architecture of farmsteads see Amos Long Jr.,
Farmsteads and their Buildings (Lebanon, Pennsylvania: Applied Art
Publishers, 1972).
70
years on the farm, general data on farming techniques and farm
structures styles will have to suffice. The Peter Pipher house is not
characterized by any strong ethnic influences and is, therefore, of a
general 1830s-1840s vernacular type common along the Delaware River.
Thus, it is not known how much effect ethnicity of either the Morrises or
the Piphers might have had on the appearance of the farm.
Agricultural Development--18th to 20th Centuries
Slateford Farm's history fits into a larger context of county, state,
and by inference, national agricultural history. Tracing the development
of agricultural change on these expanded levels reveals trends which may
have affected the Morrises, Piphers and various tenant farmers working
the Slateford Farm. The human activity which took place at the farm is
important not only in itself, but in a broader social context involving
agricultural and technological changes. An examination of these trends
will reveal not only their impact on agriculture as an industry, but also
their impact on the lives of the people living at Slateford Farm for almost
200 years.
Pennsylvania's reputation as a bountiful agricultural region dates to
the colonial period. Under the guidance of William Penn an extensive
agricultural industry was set up within 10 years after the founding of the
colony. A foreign market absorbed surplus products as early as 1686.
This phenomenon was accompanied by the growth of an extensive and
diversified agriculture which was also bound for home markets. Penn
favored self-sufficiency for his colony rather than profit from foreign
trade and he supported the agricultural markets and fairs held in
Philadelphia and other cities. The prosperous colony attracted many
37
immigrants and by 1700 Philadelphia's population reached 5,000.
37. George Fiske Johnson, "Agriculture in Pennsylvania A Study of
Trends, County and State since 1840," The Pennsylvania State College
School of Agriculture and Experiment Station, Bulletin #484, (November 1,
1929): 3-4.
71
Pennsylvania remained foremost in the production of food from the
early 1700s to the mid-1800s because of the region's rich land and
because of good farming practices by settlers. The practice of
soil-conserving rotations transformed Pennsylvania agriculture. Not only
did Pennsylvania grain feed the Revolutionary armies but the French
Revolution and Napoleonic Wars in Europe also created demands for food
at high prices from 1790 to 1810. Pennsylvania's supremacy in grain
38
production continued until the settlement of the Middle West.
During the 1820s eastern Pennsylvania suffered low yields because of
Hessian fly damage and soil depletion, but better soil management and the
introduction of Mediterranean wheat improved crops. The southeast
Pennsylvania limestone district was a prime wheat producing region and
the state as a whole was the second largest wheat producer in 1829. By
1840 the leading wheat-growing region in the North was western New
York, western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio. In 1839 Ohio ranked first
39
in bushels of wheat grown but Pennsylvania took first place in 1849.
Agricultural history in Pennsylvania changed rapidly after the
mid-1800s because of several national occurences and trends. "The Civil
War, closely followed by the opening of vast farming areas in the West,
and the development of rail transportation to eastern markets provided an
acid test for the agriculture in this Commonwealth," wrote George Fiske
40
Johnson. Pennsylvania farmers had to adapt to changing markets,
changing transportation systems and farming technology, and new
competition from western lands.
Agriculture in the state was transformed from being a self-sufficient
way of life to commercial and capitalistic industry. Before 1840 crops and
38. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture, I: 1, 127.
39. Percy Wells Bidwell and John I. Falconer, History of Agriculture [n
the Northern United States 1620-1860 (New York: Peter Smith, 1941),
pp. 262, 327.
40. Johnson, "Agriculture," 4.
72
animals were raised to feed farming families and the surplus was sold.
With the exception of only a few products, farmers could raise or make
everything their families needed. After 1840 this situation changed.
The exceptional increase in population was a major factor in the
change because it spurred the development of town and city markets.
Farmers began producing crops primarily to sell to these markets and
they in turn became consumers. Power machinery further revolutionized
farming as it eliminated much of the hard manual labor. Specialization
accompanied the change to commercial farming. The general move to
smaller, yet more efficient farms was also a trend. The substitution of
mechanization for horse and human power and rural electrification helped
transform American farmers into the producers of food for the world.
41
Mechanization began after the turn of the twentieth century.
One response of Pennsylvania farmers to western competition in
grains was a change of emphasis toward dairying. The industry changed
between the mid- to late-1800s from one carried on by women for home
consumption to an organized commercial industry. Butter and cheese
were the primary products sold in 1840 but 35 years later these products
were manufactured in factories rather than on farms. After 1900 milk
became the primary dairy product sold on the market. Several scientific
discoveries enabled the dairy industry to develop, including the invention
of the vacuum condenser in 1856, the advent of pasturization in
1860-1864, the use of silos starting about 1875, the invention of the milk
separator in 1879, and the discovery of a cheap and efficient method of
determining milk's butter-fat content in 1892. Additionally, after the
mid-nineteenth century more research was devoted to the development of
42
pure bred dairy stock. Mechanical milkers came into general use after
41. Stevenson Whitcomb Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture and Country
Life 1840-1940, vol. II (Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission, 1955), II: 1, 27, 45.
42. Ibid., pp. 165-166; Chapters VIII and IX of Fletcher's text contains
much detailed information about the specifics of Pennsylvania's dairying
industry.
73
electric power was made available on farms. Such a technological
advancement relieved farm women of much hard work and aided in the
development of the dairy industry. Milkers were not the only innovation
which changed Pennsylvania agriculture.
Very few improvements were made in farm implements until the end of the
eighteenth century. Implements were usually handmade with the iron
43
parts supplied by local blacksmiths. Agricultural machinery improved
after 1800 with the more effective design of plows and harrows.
Improvments in plow design and the substitution of iron and then steel
for wooden parts created less weight, less friction and easier handling.
At first these new plows were opposed out of fear that iron poisoned soil
and promoted weed growth. Another reason for the opposition was the
cost of replacing the entire plow when the share was dulled or broken.
Between 1814 and 1819 Jethro Wood of Scipio, New York, received patents
for improvements to the moldboard which lessened its resistance. Wood's
plow was cast in interlocking pieces which were fastened by lugs, instead
of being in one piece. Increases in the amount of wear a share could
endure and the invention of a plow with a reversible moldboard and share
which could be thrown from side to side helped farmers change their
minds about using the improved plows. Within a short time eastern
farmers were using cast-iron plows, and after 1837 western farmers were
using John Deere's steel plows. By 1860 Pennsylvania farmers had
switched to the steel plows. The new machinery reduced the labor of
44
both farmers and draft animals.
Oxen and horse labor was essential for plowing, harrowing and
hauling harvests. Arguments pro and con existed for the advantage of
43. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture, II: 180; Bidwell and Falconer,
History, p. 123.
44. Bidwell and Falconer, History, pp. 208-210; Fletcher, Pennsylvania
Agriculture, II: 57; Two Hundred Years of Life m Northampton County,
Pa. A Bicentennial Review, vol. 8. Easton, Pennsylvania: Northampton
County Bicentennial Commission, 1976), part III, "Agriculture," by
Samuel Lewis, p. 245.
74
one animal over the other, but by 1870 horses and mules had virtually
replaced oxen on Pennsylvania farms. During the last half of the
nineteenth century many horsepower machines were improved or invented,
including the "sulky plow, gang plow, spring tooth harrow, disk harrow,
sulky cultivator, steel roller, pulverizer, cultipacker, potato planter,
grain drill, twine binder, combine, cornhusker, mower, dump hay rake,
side delivery hayrake, hayfork, hay tedder, hay loader, hay bailer, and
45
thresher." Even though tractors began appearing on farms after 1925,
horses were still used as draft animals.
Aside from the chores performed by animals, all other work was done
by the human hand. Harvesting, threshing and cleaning grain involved
the use of sickles, scythes, flails and grain cradles. A human reaper or
mower could harvest no more than half or three-quarters of an acre a
day, depending on the crop. An entire day was needed to cradle two or
two and a half acres of grain. Threshing was a task involving the use of
a flail, but more generally, horses. The following description is of
Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and offers a good sense of the labor
involved in threshing:
'They hauled their grain on sleds to the stacks, where a
temporary threshing floor was erected.1 On these floors the
grain was thrashed out by horses, which were driven in a
circle, and after the heads were deemed to have been well
cleared of the seed the straw was thrown to one side with forks
and the grain swept up, ready for another lot of bundles to be
unbound and submitted to a like process. In the barns,
however, the thrashing was usually done with the flail, and on
a still day the sound of the heavy thump of the oaken breaker
on the fJoor, which acted like a drum, could be heard a long
way off.
Methods of reaping and threshing improved with the invention of
machines which supplanted the use of scythes and flails. Obed Hussey
45. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture, II: 47.
46. Bidwell and Falconer, History, pp. 125-126.
47. Ibid., p. 126.
75
patented his reaper in 1833 and the machine was introduced in
Pennsylvania in 1837. Cyrus McCormick's reaper was patented in 1834
and was first used in the state in 1840. By the Civil War high prices for
grain and a shortage of labor ensured the use of reapers on most
Pennsylvania farms with considerable acreage of grain. Both the Hussey
and McCormick reapers cut the grain but it still had to be bound by
hand. Not until after 1880 were effective twine binders introduced on
farms. The use of two-wheeled mowers with flexible cutter-bars after the
1850s effectively ended hand cutting of hay with scythes. In
Northampton County almost all haymowing was mechanized by 1855.
Early versions of threshing machines could be found in Pennsylvania
in the late 1820s and early 1830s, but the first effective thresher
appeared after 1843, invented by Illinois' Jerome Increase Case. Grain
was run through the thresher, which was a large box with spiked
cylinders inside. Horses on treadmills or attached to a sweep provided
power for the threshers until after the Civil War when steam power was
used. It became common for threshing teams to travel from farm to farm
threshing for a price.
Combination harvester-threshers, or combines, came into use in
Pennsylvania in the twentieth century. Pulled by teams of 18-24 horses
or by steam tractors, combines were used in central California during the
late 1800s. Smaller versions were used in the mid-western corn fields
after 1910 and the first use of a combine by a Pennsylvanian was in 1920.
Much of the time and labor of harvesting grain was eliminated by the use
f , . 48
of combines.
The transition in farm labor, from oxen to horses to mechanized
tractors and combines had profound economic effects. Stevenson W.
Fletcher summed up the changes:
48. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture, II: 54-59; Lewis "Agriculture,"
pp. 245-246. See also, John T. Schlebecher, Whereby We Thrive A
History of American Farming, 1607-1972 (Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State
University Press, 1975), chapters nine and 10 for a history of farm
mechanization .
76
The primary advantage of using improved machinery is
economic--it saves time, lowers the cost of production, and does
the work more efficiently. ... In 1840 each farm worker
produced only enough food for himself and three others; in
1940 he produced enough for himself and fifteen others. This
has been brought about not only by advance in agricultural
technology but also by the use of more efficient machinery.
Mechanization had another economic effect, that of the cost of
operating a farm. More capital was required to buy machinery than
livestock, and capital had to be divided between investment and
improvement in land, livestock and tools, or operational needs such as
seed, feed, or wages for hired help. Clarence Danhof quoted an 1855
agricultural journal article which provided details for the capital required
to operate a 100-acre farm. The estimate for livestock, implements and
seed came to $2,000. (See appendix 18.) Stevenson W. Fletcher gave
the example of the value of machinery on a Pennsylvania farm averaging
50
$115 or 99<f an acre in 1850 and $763 or $21.17 an acre in 1940.
The growth of mechanized, commercial agriculture also resulted in a
lessening of household industries. Farm families changed from being
almost totally self-sufficient to being consumers of goods they had
formerly supplied for themselves. As more surplus produce was raised
and sold farm families had more cash income to spend. This single
economic fact held considerable consequences. Horace Bushnell, a
contemporary observer, saw what was happening in 1851: "This
transition from mother, and daughter, power to water, and steam-power
is a great one, greater by far than many have as yet begun to
conceive--one that is to carry with it a complete revolution of domestic
49. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture, II: 61.
50. Clarence Danhof, Change jn Agriculture The Northern United States
1820-70 (Cambridge, Masschusetts: Harvard University Press, 1969), pp.
95-97; Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture, II: 61. Chapter four of
Danhof's text discussed the prerequisites for farming, including skills,
capital funds, credit, mortgaging, renting and application of credit. See
pp. 73-100.
77
51
life and social manners." Percy Wells Bidwell and John I. Falconer
noted that Bushnell's observation was correct:
... As self-sufficient farming declined there went with it
long-established habits and traditions, not only in the method
of getting a living, but also in ways of thinking and of living.
The mores of self-maintenance . . . were revolutionized, and
there followed of necessity a change in the ideas and ideals of
the rural folk, in family and in social relations.
The self-sufficient economy emphasized the virtues of
self-reliance and independence, of frugality and thrift. . . .
The introduction of the cash nexus, the selling of certain
articles and buying of others, forced the farmers to confront a
new set of problems, calling for the exercise of a new set of
faculties. Shrewdness in buying and selling must now be added
to the simpler qualities of hard work and saving. Farming
became a more speculative business, for to the already existent
risks of weather conditions was added the risk of price
fluctuations. Thereafter success in getting a living no longer
depended on the unremitting efforts of the farm family, aided
by Providence, but to a large extent also upon the
unpredictable wants and labors of millions of persons in the
industrial villages and in the newer farms to the westward.
During the years the Pipher family operated their farm many changes
occurred in the field of agriculture in Pennsylvania. These changes had
both economic and social ramifications. The first half of the eighteenth
century was a time of cheaper transportation, western competition, and
unstable markets. Eastern farmers had to adjust and make better use of
the land through fertilization, care of livestock, alternation of crops, and
the adoption of labor-saving machinery.
Further changes occurred during the years of the farm's absentee
ownership and rental caretakers. Rural free delivery was available in
Northampton County at the turn of the twentieth century. Self-propelled
combines appeared in the county in the late 1930s, in time for the
production needs incurred by World War II. By 1945 most farms in the
51. Bidwell and Falconer, History, p. 252
52. Ibid.
78
county had telephone service and were supplied with electricity. Farms
of more than 500 acres totaled 23.1 percent of all farmland in Northampton
County in 1969. Twentieth century farmers in the county grow livestock
and cash grain. Wheat is grown for market consumption while corn is
53
grown for both livestock consumption and cash. (See appendixes 13-16
for Northampton County statistics.) Farming is still a way of life for
many county families, but it is a way of life which has been significantly
altered over the past 200 years. Twentieth century tenants of Slateford
Farm may have inherited the legacy of the land from the Morrises and the
Piphers, but their lives were less isolated, less tedious and less
provincial .
Thus, Slateford Farm reflected the changing scene in American
agriculture. Diversification, mechanization and specialization epitomized
54
this changed look. Even though Slateford ceased to be an operating
farm for several years, its overall history can still be viewed as fitting
into the broader context of county, state and national trends in
agriculture.
Labor--Black Slavery and White Servitude
Another aspect of Pennsylvania agricultural history to consider is
labor. The ever-increasing need for labor not only in agriculture, but in
all industry, influenced the importation of black slaves and white
indentured labor into Pennsylvania. Whereas black slavery died out fairly
quickly in the province, the significance and influence of white servitude
in Pennsylvania has often been underestimated.
53. Lewis, "Agriculture," pp. 241, 244, 247.
54. See George Fiske Johnson's article "Agriculture in Pennsylvania A
Study of Trends, County and State, since 1840" for details of farm
production from 1840-1929. For a discussion of agricultural change on
the national scale, see John T. Schlebecker's Whereby We Thrive A
History of American Farming, 1607-1972.
79
Black slavery was never a major factor in Pennsylvania agricultural
history. The majority of slaves kept in the state were domestic servants,
with less than 10 percent working on farms. From a high of 11,000 in
1751 the number of black slaves dropped to 6,000 when the state
emancipation law was passed in 1780 and to 3,737 in 1790 when Samuel
Pipher bought his farm. Twenty-three of these slaves were in
Northampton County in 1790. This number dropped to eight in 1800 and
55
after 1810 there was no slavery in the county. The three generations
of Pipher farmers did not use slave labor on their farm. This is possibly
due to their large families, which supplied labor, or to their ethnic
heritage.
Slavery did not become a major source of labor in Pennsylvania for
both ethical and economic reasons. Germans and English Quakers disliked
slavery and generally refused to hold slaves. Quakers, especially, were
leaders in the national movement to abolish slavery. As early as 1688 the
Friends were making public pronouncements against the institution.
During the Revolutionary War all Friends were ordered to free their
slaves or face social stigma by their peers. Abolition societies flourished
55. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture, I: 116; The Pennsylvania
General Assembly passed the first abolition act in America on March 1,
1780, which provided for "gradual abolition." Ibid, I, p. 119. The
principal author of the bill passed was George Bryan, a Scotch-Irish
Presbyterian, the vice-president of the state's executive council
(1777-1779). The act's preamble reflected the political theory of the
Declaration of Independence and the act itself provided that children born
to slaves after March 1, 1780 were to be free at age 28. All slaves were
to be registered; those whose masters did not comply by November 1,
1780 were considered free. The colonial black codes which regulated
slave behavior were repealed. Slavery in Pennsylvania gradually declined
after the act's passage as to be nonexistant by 1850. See Ira V. Brown,
The Negro In Pennsylvania History Pennsylvania History Studies No. 11,
(University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Historical Association,
1970), pp. 6-8. Samuel Hazard, The Register of Pennsylvania, vol. IX
(Philadelphia, January to July 1832) p. 272. See also Elizabeth L.
Myers, "Newspaper Articles on Local History," March 1931 -February 1932,
article #6, unpublished typescript.
80
and the Pennsylvania Colonial Assembly often debated passing a
prohibitive duty as a means of excluding slave importation.
From an economic standpoint the slavery system did not stand much
of a chance either. Frontier conditions precluded slavery's introduction.
As the colony grew slaves were imported, but never to a substantial
degree because the plantation system, which most favored slavery, never
appeared. Pennsylvania's tendencies toward small farming, manufacturing
and commerce did not encourage slavery as a labor system. Few German
farmers owned slaves because it was cheaper to perform the labor
themselves. Large families became sources of labor and children worked
in the fields at early ages. German farm women not only worked in the
home but in the fields as well. Slaves were expensive and small farms
57
could not support them.
Climate also worked against slavery in Pennsylvania. Slaves
imported from Africa usually had to undergo a period of "seasoning" in
the West Indies before they were brought to the colonies. Slaves
imported directly to Pennsylvania either suffered early deaths or
contracted disease. Owners who manumitted their slaves in Pennsylvania
were legally responsible for their future support, and this fact helped
deter slavery. Additionally, an owner's investment was lost if the slave
died.
When black slaves were first brought into the American colonies their
status did not significantly differ from that of white indentured servants.
As decades passed, attitudes changed, restrictive laws were adopted, and
56. Edward Raymond Turner, The Negro [n Pennsylvania
Slavery- Servitude- Freedom 1639-1861 (New York: Negro Universities
Press, 1911, reprint ed . , 1969), pp. 14-15; Cheesman A. Herrick, White
Servitude |n Pennsylvania (Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries
Press, 1926, reprint ed., 1970) pp. 24, 82-83, 85.
57. Turner, The Negro m Pennsylvania, pp. 14-15, Fletcher,
Pennsylvania Agriculture, I: 119.
58. Herrick, White Servitude, p. 23.
81
the status of blacks dropped. Nevertheless, the sentiment against
slavery intensified and resulted in the 1780 abolition law's being passed
59
with the help of the Friends and Revolutionary War fervor.
Even though black slavery was not widely practiced in Pennsylvania
another form of servitude was--that of white indentured servitude.
Because of the prevailing sentiment against slavery a substitute form of
labor had to be found. White servitude was there waiting to take the
place of slavery. Author Cheesman A. Herrick wondered how
Pennsylvanians would have stood on the question of slavery had
indentured laborers not existed. Herrick insisted, ". . . it is not hard
to see that these laborers made possible both a response to the Quaker
and German sentiment against slavery and the preservation of unusual
fiO
economic prosperity." Indentured labor was only temporary whereas
slavery not only lasted a lifetime but extended to one's children. The
opposition to slavery manifested itself in the demand for indentured
fil
servants to fill the labor void. Karl Frederick Geiser even asserted:
White labor was preferred to negro labor generally, and the
chief reason that slavery became the prevailing system in some
of the colonies, was, because the service was for life instead of
for a limited term of years. Had the term of service been
equal, slavery would never have been of so great a
consequence, and probably would never have gained a firm
footing on American soil."
Two types of indentured labor existed in Pennsylvania—voluntary
redemptioners and apprentices and the involuntary service of felonious
criminals and debtors. The earliest documents in Pennsylvania history
mention indentured servants because the first settlers brought servants
59. Turner, The Negro \r± Pennsylvania, p. 250.
60. Herrick, White Servitude, p. 97.
61. Ibid.; pp. 98-99.
62. Karl Frederick Geiser, Redemptioners and Indentured Servants jn
the Colony and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (New Haven, Connecticut:
Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Co., 1901), p. 25.
82
with them. Estimates are that at least one-third of Pennsylvania's
immigrants were servants. Fortunately the colony did not become a
"dumping ground" for criminals and terms of servitude seemed more
practicable than keeping able-bodied labor in jails which no one really
wanted to pay for. Debtors served until their debts were paid.
CO
Imprisonment and servitude for debt was not abolished until 1842.
The "indenture," or contract, spelled out the reciprocal rights and
obligations of both master and servant. Ordinarily the indentured
immigrant bound him or herself for a defined period to the person who
paid the immigrant's passage to America. The servant promised to serve
the master "honestly and obediently" while the master was to provide the
servant with food, clothing, lodging and "freedom dues," which varied in
the contracts, but which usually included new clothing. Not all
indentures were made for passage money; some were entered into by
residents seeking a sum of money or other privileges. The time served
64
usually depended upon the age and health of the servants.
Being indentured did not necessarily mean a person suffered lower
status. There were advantages in the long term service for both the
servants and master. Performing ordinary work guaranteed the servant
years of having his other daily needs provided. Indentured immigrants
had years within which to become accustomed to the new country's
language, ways and customs. The owners benefitted by having a supply
of manual labor available—at a time when labor was in high demand.
The system was not without its horrors, however, for the
trans-Atlantic trade in immigrant indentured labor has been compared to
that of the African slave trade in terms of living conditions on the ships.
Thousands lost their lives because of insufficient food and water, and
63. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture, I: 110, 113-115; Geiser,
Redemptioners, pp. 25, 27.
64. Geiser, Redemptioners, pp. 71, 73.
83
terrible overcrowding below deck. The trade continued until 1820--well
after the American Revolution.
Tenancy
Farm tenancy can be defined as a system of land operation wherein
the owner turns the day-to-day farm activities over to another person.
The farms are leased for either annual cash amounts or a share of the
products. Owners are relieved of responsibility to varying degrees while
the tenants keep all income after the rent is paid. Tenancy provided
training for young farmers hoping to eventually own property of their
own. Tenancy also commonly served as a way for sons and daughters to
fifi
gradually take over farm operations from their elderly parents.
Previous to 1880 the Bureau of the Census kept no tenancy statistics
but the practice has a long history in the United States. By 1900
tenancy in Pennsylvania reached a high of 26 percent. (See appendix 17
for number of tenant-operated farms.) Tenancy was more prevalent in
the state where real estate was purchased for speculative purposes or
where agricultural opportunities were good. Northampton County's rate
of tenancy was not high. In the early to mid-1930s Upper Mount Bethel
Township only had 30 farms, or 10-19 percent of the farm land operated
by tenants, Slateford Farm being one. Different types of leases were
used in Pennsylvania ranging from cash leases to equal sharing in the
livestock and equipment investments by both tenant and landlord to profit
fi7
sharing leases to cropshare leases.
65. Ibid., pp. 75-76; Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture, I: 112-113.
66. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture, II: 39; P. I. Wrigley, "Farm
Tenancy in Pennsylvania," The Pennsylvania State College School of
Agriculture and Experiment Station Bulletin #383 (September 1939): 1.
67. Wrigley, "Farm Tenancy," 1-5, 12-20; The Wrigley article also
examines types of leases, tenants' attitudes, standards of living and other
topics.
84
Lifestyle of Farming Families
Farming as a way of life is not within the experience of most
Slateford Farm visitors, or of most Americans. Interpretation at a
historical farm, involving "plants, animals, tools, implements, and
CO
methods," show visitors the main elements of farm life. Even though
Slateford Farm is not a "living historical farm" where actual farming
methods are utilized, the farm structures and land can be used as
resources in the interpretation of farming lifestyles over a span of 200
years.
The multitude of changes in farm life over the decades can be
exemplified most easily by examining only one farm task--the processing
of farm products. John T. Schlebecker reminds us that most of this
processing took place on the farm itself. "Farmers husked and shelled
corn by hand, threshed and winnowed their wheat, churned butter,
pressed cheese, slaughtered hogs, and smoked their own ham and bacon.
Farmers usually performed these tasks fairly promptly, albeit sometimes
69
infrequently, as the opportunity arose."
This major change in farming was accompanied by many others,
including the growing switch from self-reliance to dependence on the
market for needs, the increase in variety of goods, the raising of a
surplus being as important as raising products for the farming family's
own consumption, and the increased specialization of farming activities.
The farmstead surrendered many of the functions which provided for its
own subsistence and became more and more dependent within the market
economy. An examination of the changes in farming lifestyles
68. John T. Schlebecker, Living Historical Farms A Walk Into the Past
(Washington, D. C: Smithsonian Institution, 1968), pp. 6, 8.
69. Ibid., pp. 23-24.
70. Danhof, Change i_n Agriculture, p. 18.
85
generally, will aid in understanding changes which occurred on the
Slateford Farm in particular.
During the colonial period farmsteads were on sites most accessible
to water, transportation facilities and the highest grade of soil.
Pennsylvania farm families usually relied on springs or streams for their
water supply. In some instances cabins were built directly over springs.
First settlers sometimes lived in caves, especially along the Delaware
River, or lean-tos and then graduated into log cabins. One-room cabins,
considered proverty-level existence in Europe, did not imply that status
in America. Log cabins were generally replaced with larger log houses,
usually one-and-a-half or two stories. These log houses were the most
common type of farm home in central and western Pennsylvania until after
1840. Second and third generations on the property eventually replaced
71
the log houses with more substantial frame, stone or brick homes. This
was certainly the experience on the Pipher property with Samuel and
Christina's son Peter building the 1833 frame house to replace the cabin.
Before the Revolutionary War most of the furniture in Pennsylvania
farm homes was homemade. Chairs, benches, tables, beds and closets
were made by either the farmers or by local carpenters in a nearby rural
village. Importation of furniture from Great Britain suffered by 1812
when congressionally imposed tariffs were set, and American commercial
manufacture of furniture grew. As rural families could afford more
goods, dirt and puncheon floors were replaced with boards, carpets
replaced rag-rugs, walls were papered after 1800, and clocks appeared
after 1840. Friction matches were not used until after 1850. Pine knot
torches, grease lamps, tallow-dip candles and open fireplaces provided
the only indoor light until after 1860 when kerosene oil lamps were
used.
71. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture, I: 371-372, 375-376.
72. Ibid., 382-390.
86
Few farmers failed to increase their consumption of urban-originated
goods. Values of self-sufficiency and frugality remained, but farmers
started raising their consumption level. Clarence Danhof, a chronicler of
agricultural change, provided this account of the process between 1820
and 1870:
To a small extent, a rise in the standard of living was
accomplished within the subsistence framework, as in a shift to
wheat bread from rye and corn, or to butter from lard, and in
an increase in the consumption of meat, particularly beef, and
of vegetables and fruits. The increased use of salt,
condiments, molasses and sugar, however, was supplied by the
market. More important were the efforts to obtain a wider
variety of nonfood items, objects that the household
manufacturer could not supply economically if at all. Over the
half-century, a desirable level of living came to include an
increasing variety and volume of products that were obtainable
more economically and sometimes exclusively by money purchase.
Of great significance was the displacement of homespun linens
and woolens by factory-woven cottons and woolens.
Factory-made shoes and hats displaced those of local
fabrication. Log cabins and rough plank homes were abandoned
for buildings constructed of brick, stone, or mill-sawn lumber,
requiring the purchase of millwork, nails, and similar materials
as well as the services of skilled craftsmen. Iron stoves and
ranges supplemented or displaced the open fireplace. Rough,
homemade furniture was supplemented and displaced by the
work of urban cabinet makers. Urban industries added rugs
and carpets, curtains, household linens, musical instruments,
books, newspapers, and magazines, as well as clocks and
watches. Wooden trenchers were displaced by a variety of
china, earthen, glass, and metal table and kitchenware, as the
cast iron kettle was supplemented by tinware. Factory-made
candles and oil burning lamps displaced homemade products.
The productive equipment of farming came increasingly from
specialized urban sources. The rough wagon formerly made by
the local wheelwright, with only the axles purchased, became a
factory product, as. did carriages and horse harnesses, churns
and corn shellers.
The Piphers' daily lives were probably also affected by the lack of
household conveniences. Frontier conditions did not provide indoor
plumbing or running water, electric lights or central heating. In the
73. Danhof, Change nn Agriculture, pp. 18-19.
87
cabin the large, open fireplace provided the only warmth and means for
cooking. Bathing was rare because of attitudes and because of the
back-breaking labor of hauling and heating water. Tin or wooden
bathtubs were in general use after 1840. Unscreened windows and doors
74
usually meant continual swarms of flies, mosquitos and gnats.
Technological advances raised the quality of farm life on into the
twentieth century. Probably the most significant factor was the
development of goods and services which chipped away at rural
isolation—telephones, radios, mail order catalogs, mail delivery,
75
automobiles and railroads. Tenants living at Slateford Farm had more
access to the goods and services offered in near and far towns and
cities, and to education and public contact on a much wider scale than
the Piphers did.
The drudgery of many farm chores was eliminated with the
introduction of running water in the kitchen, the installation of kitchen
sinks after 1860, and indoor plumbing after 1900. Stoves replaced
fireplaces. Rural electrification after 1930 made the use of water pumps,
electric lights, washing machines and wringers, and other labor-saving
76
devices available.
By 1955 Stevenson Whitcomb Fletcher was observing that "Farmers
are no longer a class apart; they are cosmopolitan." He described
farmers as "rapidly losing the characteristics that once sharply
distinguished them from city people and are acquiring the characteristics
of urban residents in intellectual interests, social customs, dress, and
home life,
„77
74. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture, I: 386-387, 91-92.
75. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture, II: 485.
76. Ibid., 489-91.
77. Ibid., 507.
88
He was writing about Hunterdon County in New Jersey, but Hubert
G. Schmidt's comments in 1972 on agricultural change can apply to
Northampton County as well: "If a farmer of the Colonial period or one
of a century ago were permitted to return to this earth, he would be
amazed at the material progress since his day and would find it hard to
adjust himself to the machinery and gadgets and to the hustling and
78
bustling which accompanies all activity today."
Farming practices at Slateford Farm were representative of
Pennsylvania agricultural history as a whole. Throughout the years
several types of crops were raised, fertilization was utilized and a barn
sheltered animals. Pipher wills and estate inventories reveal that a
variety of agricultural implements were used. Tax records show that the
Piphers farmed their land themselves without the help of purchased labor.
Tenant farming also occurred on the property. Twentieth century owners
and renters of the farm made significant changes as they introduced
electricity and other technological advances. If Samuel and Christina
Pipher returned to their working farm a century and a half later their
reactions would probably support Hubert Schmidt's observation.
78. Hubert G. Schmidt, Rural Hunterdon, p. 287. See Schmidt's
chapter 13 "Ways of Life" for excellent comparative data on farming
lifestyles in Hunterdon County, New Jersey.
89
CHAPTER FOUR
SLATE IN NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
Slateford Farm tells two local and regional stories: one of farming,
characteristic of Northampton County and Pennsylvania, and the other of
slate quarrying, also characteristic of the region and state. Farming, of
course, is Slateford Farm's primary theme, and it was farming which
provided a livelihood for the Piphers and tenant farmers. Slate
quarrying, however, was developed in the nearby town of Slateford
during the nineteenth century, and this industry had an effect on
Slateford Farm. Quarrying occurred on the farm property after Samuel
Pipher sold it in 1868 and one, and possibly two, subsequent owners
exploited the slate resources on the property. After the quarries were
worked and abandoned Slateford Farm's agricultural potential regained
dominance as twentieth century owners and renters returned to farming
the land.
At least three quarries have been tentatively identified on Slateford
Farm, and they fit into a larger context of slate quarrying in
Northampton County and the state of Pennsylvania. (See appendix 24 for
listing of quarries.) Three primary slate districts exist in the state,
being located in: 1) Lancaster and York counties, near the Maryland
border (a quarry opened there in 1734 was the first in the United States;
2) Lehigh County, centering around Slatington and Danielsville; and 3)
Northampton County, centering around Pen Argyl, Bangor, Bath and
Nazareth. (See illustrations 3 and 4 for Pennsylvania and Delaware Water
Gap Slate areas.) The quarries in Northampton County are soft slate, or
soft belt, quarries and thus yield a greater variety of slate products.
The Slateford Group of quarries, including those on Slateford Farm, were
1
soft slate quarries.
1. Behre, Northampton, pp. 121-122, 295,
91
These quarries provided slate for many types of products, with the
exception of slate pencils. Roofing slate; slate for sinks, mantels and
shower stalls; grave vaults; billiard table tops; electrical insulation and
switchboard material; blackboards; school slates; and marbleized, crushed
and ground slate were all produced from quarries in Northampton County.
When slate was first being quarried in the county, almost all of it was
roofing slate, but the industry soon grew to include the myriad of other
slate uses. Pennsylvania, and more specifically Northampton County,
became the leading producer of slate in the nation, a distinction held into
2
the first quarter of the twentieth century.
Efforts of James Madison Porter
The history of the quarries in Northampton County at Slateford is
filled with discrepancies concerning dates of company incorporations,
years of operation and even location, but the name of one man is
inexorably linked with the early slate quarrying in the eastern portion of
the county. James Madison Porter headed early quarrying efforts, and is
generally considerec
from Slateford Farm
3
generally considered to be the founder of Slateford, which is one mile
The early date of 1805 is given to the opening of a quarry by the
Pennsylvania Slate Company in a newspaper article dated April 12, 1806.
The Northampton Farmer & Easton Weekly Advertiser article placed the
quarry's location "in Upper Mount Bethel Township, Northampton County,
near the Water Gap," and remarked that the slate was "of a quality in
2. Ibid., pp. 297-299. For a detailed description of the technology of
slate quarrying and processing, see pp. 273-294.
3. The Portland Area Centennial history stated that Slateford is located
on the grounds of the former Kittatiny Slate Company, incorporated in
1808. "... James M. Porter, president of the company, built six or
eight homes for workmen, a superintendent's house, a barn, a
storehouse, a wagon house and a slate factory." JoAn Lloyd and Eileen
Kline, eds., Portland Area Centennial 1876-1976 (Pen Argyl,
Pennsylvania: Slate Belt Printers, Inc., 1976), n.p.
92
every respect equal to that imported from Europe," and that "Some of the
best houses in Philadelphia are covered with this slate." Orders for slate
were to be left with Thomas J. Rogers, a printer in Easton,
Pennsylvania; Thomas Gordon of Belvidere, New Jersey; James Bell, the
quarry superintendent; or Adrian Taquair, the company's treasurer in
4
Philadelphia.
A local historian, Matthew S. Henry, writing in 1851, stated that a
slate quarry "At the northern line of the Township along the Delaware
River at the Gap" was incorporated on April 16, 1808, under the title
"the President Managers & C for the purpose of obtaining Slate from
quarries within the County of Northampton." This title was changed on
April 1, 1836, and again on February 22, 1853, to the Kittatinny Slate
Company. The organization of this company was believed to be the first
5
attempt at quarrying slate "in this Country."
Henry also wrote that the company suffered financially because both
the organizers and the workmen were "inexperienced & unskilfull." The
company stopped operations after several years, but the quarries had
been worked "for the last 10 or 12 years" by private individuals. By
1851 the company had resumed quarrying and Henry stated the company
owned "227 acres of land immediately below the Delaware Water Gap,
bordering on the River about 3/4 of a mile." The present (1851) officers
of the company included, "Honble James M. Porter President, under the
auspices of whom the manufacture of School Slates had originally been
established (& to whose exertions the present company is indebted for
their successfull operations)." The company's managers were Samuel
Taylor, David Barnet, George Taylor, M. H. Jones, J. N. Hutchison and
James M. Porter Jr., and the treasurer and secretary were, respectively,
Samuel Taylor and J. N. Hutchison.
4. Elizabeth D. Walters, research note, January 16, 1969, DEWA park
files: "Pennsylvania — Northampton County Land Titles."
5. Henry, "Manuscript History," pp. 226-227. The manuscript is dated
1851, but data up to 1853 is included.
6. Ibid., pp. 227-228.
93
Another local history, published in 1877, stated the Slateford
settlement consisted of "a small cluster of houses, most of which were
erected by Hon. James M. Porter, who owned and opened the slate
quarries at that place, about 1805." Porter's quarry employees lived in
the village's houses, and his quarry, "about half a mile northwest of the
village," was "considered one of the best in the township." In 1877 this
quarry was owned by J. L. Williams.
Later historians of the county place the first quarrying in 1806 by
o
the Pennsylvania Slate Company and in 1808 by an unnamed company.
Geologist R. H. Sanders, writing in 1883, stated that J. W. Williams'
quarry was a half mile northwest of Slateford and was the first slate
quarry opened in Pennsylvania "about the year 1812." Another geologist,
Charles Behre Jr., wrote in 1927 that the date of 1812 for the Williams
quarry was "probably incorrect." According to Behre, "It was first
opened in 1832 by Sam Taylor, then came into the hands of John Williams
in 1850, and is at present [1927] on the property of Frank Williams of
Slateford." Another local historian stated in 1940 that the Williams
Quarry was opened in 1832 by Samuel Taylor, "who in 1836 was joined by
9
James M. Porter in operating the quarry."
Further confusion concerning the history of early slate quarrying in
Upper Mount Bethel Township occurs when James Madison Porter's history
7. Ellis, History of Northampton County, p. 251.
8. Heller, History of Northampton County, I: 280; Two Hundred Years
of Life j_n Northampton County, Pa. A Bicentennial Review vol. 8,
(Easton: Northampton County Bicentennial Commission, 1976) part II
"Business and Industry," by Dr. Alfred Pierce, p. 182.
9. Lesley, J. P. et al., Second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania, The
Geology of Lehigh and Northampton Counties, vol. I. (Harrisburg: The
Board 'of Commissioners for the Second Geological Survey, 1883) p. 86;
Behre, Northampton, pp. 128, 297; John N. Hoffman, "History of Slate in
Pennsylvania" Address Before the Northampton Historical Society at Weona
Park, Pen Argyl, Pa. September 14, 1940, unpublished typescript,
Northampton Historical and Genealogical Society.
94
is considered. If, indeed Porter founded the town of Slateford and
opened the first quarry there in 1805, he would have done so at the ripe
young age of 12, for he was born January 6, 1793, near Norristown,
Pennsylvania.
James Madison Porter was the youngest son of General Andrew
Porter and his second wife Elizabeth Parker Porter. One of his brothers,
David Rittenhouse Porter, was governor of Pennsylvania; another
brother, George Bryan Porter, was governor of Michigan Territory; while
a third brother, Robert Porter, was a Philadelphia lawyer. Porter
studied law, was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar on April 23, 1813, and
served as a commissioned officer, reaching the rank of colonel during the
War of 1812. In 1818 he moved to Easton, Pennsylvania where he
practiced law for more than 40 years. Porter and his wife, Eliza Michler
10
of Easton, raised seven children.
In Easton James Madison Porter served as the deputy attorney
general for Northampton County. His success as a lawyer was due, in
part, to his "phenomenal memory and the gift of eloquence." He served
in the Pennsylvania Legislature and served in the state constitutional
convention which developed the 1838 Pennsylvania Constitution. In June
1839 Porter was appointed president judge of the 12th Judicial District of
Pennsylvania (Dauphin, Schuylkill and Lebanon counties) and in 1853 was
elected president judge of the 22nd judicial district (Wayne, Pike, Monroe
and Carbon counties). President John Tyler appointed Porter secretary
of war in 1843 but he only served nine months because the Senate did not
1 1
confirm him for political reasons.
10. Heller, History, I: 283; "Porter, Founder of Lafayette, a
Distinguished American," The Lafayette Alumnus, XVIII, no. 15 (April
1948): 3. Another relative was Mary Todd Lincoln, the daughter of Eliza
Parker Todd and great-granddaughter of General Andrew Porter.
11. "Porter, Founder,": 3; Jane S. Moyer and Christine Wroblewski,
"Bicentennial Sketches For the Celebration of the Bicentennial Year in
Easton, Pa.," unpublished manuscript, Easton Area Public Library,
Easton, Pennsylvania, 1976, p. 160; "James Madison Porter," by [Donald
L. McMurry], D.A.B., vol. VI 1 1 :94-95.
95
The law was not Porter's only interest, for he was involved with
both educational and business ventures. He is considered the founder of
Lafayette College, chartered in 1826, in Easton. He served as president
of the board of trustees from 1826 to 1852, and was professor of
jurisprudence and political economy from 1837 to 1852. Porter's interest
in canals and railroads led him to become the first president of the
Delaware, Lehigh, Schuylkill & Susquehanna Railroad, chartered in 1847.
He was also president of this company's successor, the Lehigh Valley
Railroad, from 1853 to 1856, and president of the Belvidere Delaware
Railroad. Porter suffered from ill health during his last years and died
12
in Easton on November 11, 1862.
The brief biographies of James Madison Porter do not mention any
involvement with slate quarrying in Upper Mount Bethel Township,
Northampton County. As early as 1815, however, Porter organized a
company "for the purpose of purchasing and working a quarry of slate,
of superior quality, situate near the banks of the river Delaware in
Upper Mount Bethel township." The company was capitalized at $15,000
selling 300 shares of stock at $50 each. The stockholders, besides
Porter, were businessmen of Philadelphia and Easton. The first $1,500
raised was to be used for the purpose of opening a quarry, erecting
13
sheds, purchasing tools, quarrying, and dressing the slate.
It apparently was Porter's method to either lease or acquire outright
any parcels of land that displayed evidences of promise for slate
quarrying in Upper Mount Bethel Township. A random survey of deed
books at the Northampton County Government Center in Easton reveals
the frenetic activity of James Madison Porter in many fields of endeavor.
He not only involved himself in slate, but made similar investments in
limestone quarrying, the extraction of iron ore, and coal mining. Even
12. "James Madison Porter," in D.A.B., V 1 1 : 95 .
13. Deed Book D-4, pp. 38-39, dated June 23, 1815, recorded May 24,
1817, NCE.
96
though the slate quarries near Slateford eventually fell into other hands,
Porter was probably instrumental in making the start at some sites. The
earliest quarrying near the Delaware Water Gap occurred in 1805-1806 and
any connection Porter might have had with these efforts have not been
14
conclusively proved. There is proof, however, that Porter was
involved with quarrying by 1815 and that his company was called the
Northampton Slate Quarry Company in 1817 and the Pennsylvania Slate
Company in the 1830s.
Letters sent between Porter and Thomas J. Rogers, a member of the
state legislature (and probably the same Rogers mentioned in connection
with the 1805 quarry), in 1816 and 1817 reveal some details concerning
their slate business in Northampton County. On June 25, 1816, Porter
wrote Rogers about getting the business started:
At our last meeting on Thursday evening the 20th inst. A
resolution passed the board, directing me to pay to you or
yours order $300 to enable you to proceed with the quarry - As
I shall hade no money until after the 1st of July Until that
time I cannot comply with the resolution - I have heretofore
authorized N. Michler Esq. to receive the installments from the
Subscribers in Northampton County &c due the 1st July next.
If those subscriptions are paid in, it will more than suffice to
pay you the amount of the order - . . . . You mentioned in
your last that you had sold to Mr. Herster of Easton, Slate to
cover his house &c. Will you be pleased to communicate the
terms on which you sold them. The hands should be paid
weekly I think. Please to inform me still when you want money
& I will endeavour to remit. Take care to take time by the
forelock so that we may always have some days to devise ways
& means if we should be straitened. Mr. Hart mentioned that
he had deposited the title papers with you - He was also to
have lodged Certificates that there were no Judgements or
mortgages against the premises agreeably to a memorandum I
gave him. I wish you to send down all these papers as soon as
possible as some of the Stockholders refuse paying until these
documents are received.
14. Perhaps the answer may be found in a collection of late nineteenth
century slate industry records which were listed in Hamer's Guide in 1961
as being held at Lafayette College. Efforts on the part of the Skillman
Library staff, David Fritz and the author to locate these records in 1983
and 1984 proved unsuccessful.
97
The President & Managers are much pleased with your
attention and the spirit^ with which you have begun the
business of the Company.
Rogers answered Porter's letter on July 2, 1816, and his letter
reveals more data about starting the quarry's operations:
I visited the quarry last week, and I am happy to inform you
that prospects are much more flattering than we had reason to
expect. They have already got out slate and progressing very
well. The slate is excellent, and appears remarkably easy to
work. I have agreed with Mr. Herster for 18 or 20 square for
from nine to ten Dollars per square, he to bring them. If the
water is low he says he cannot give more than $9 if it should
be high we will receive ten. He will send a Boat for them.
Mr. Herster engaged the slate last fall and has been waiting for
them a comparable time; and if he could have brought them in
the spring when the water was high, he could have offered to
give more for them, because he could bring more in the Boat.
I have acted in this instance solely with a view to the
prosperity and future advantage of the Company. It is
certainly important to have a sample laid in Easton in order that
those who wish to purchase may have an opportunity of Seeing
them without going to the quarry. Mr. Herster is to pay one
half when they are brought, the other half when they are laid.
If any more should be wanted here, I think it expedient that
the president and managers should fix the price and instruct
me accordingly. I spoke to Labar relative to the price for
Herster he told me he thought $10 would do very well. It will
depend, however on the water. . . .
As we have now commenced getting slate out would it not
be advisable for the Company to send up a committee from the
Managers in the city, to examine and report and prepare and
have that report published?
I have requested Mr. Herster to keep a particular account
of the expense of the slate roof in order to make a comparison
between the slate and shingle roof &c.
15. James Madison Porter to Thomas J. Rogers, June 25, 1816,
Ferdinand J. Dreer Collection, Manuscript Department, HSP. There is
probably a connection between the Mr. Michler mentioned in the letter and
Porter's wife's family.
16. Rogers to Porter, July 2, 1816, Ferdinand J. Dreer Collection,
Manuscript Department, HSP.
98
Writing from Philadelphia on July 28, 1816, James Madison Porter told
Rogers he had been to see D. Groves, the president of the company. He
discussed financial matters and described the salability of the slate:
Any Quantity of Slate that you may be able to send here will
meet with a ready Sale - 1000 squares might be sold to
advantage at this moment if we had them - Any sales made at
the quarry must be left to your discretion having a view to the
general interest of the Concerned.
The final letter found was written by Porter on January 24, 1817, to
Rogers, who was serving in the Senate in Harrisburg. This letter
reveals data concerning the quarry company's incorporation:
Messers Hart & Brothwell have made a proposal to me, to
sell out their interest in the Northampton Slate Quarry
Company, for the sum of $8,000, reserving to themselves ten
Shares of Stock each equal to One thousand Dollars more If a
number of the subscribers should enter into an arrangement on
the subject, and I fancy they would sell probably for less, it
will merely amount to this that the proprietors of the Quarry
will be Changed and the purchasers will be the proprietors of
all the unsold & forfeited stock, with a right to receive the
purchase money from those Stockholders who pay up their
installments. The Stock originally consisted of 300 shares, at
50 dollars per share amounting to $15000, payable in ten
installments of $5 per share, the first of which was due on the
1st of July last, and an additional instalment of $5 per share on
the first of each Succeeding October January April, & July
until the whole be paid. There were originally 285 Shares
Subscribed. Of these 198 have paid the first installment.
Should they Continue on to pay it will amount to $9900, the last
of which will be paid Oct 1, 1818. Some of those who have not
paid are able to pay & probably will be compelled So to do, at
all events those who purchase will become proprietors of the
Unsold Shares, which if we Manage properly and jriake good
dividends Can be sold out at paid or at an advance.
17. Porter to Rogers, July 28, 1816, Ferdinand J. Dreer Collection,
Manuscript Department, HSP.
18. Porter to Rogers, January 24, 1817, Ferdinand J. Dreer Collection,
Manuscript Department, HSP.
99
An Easton newspaper article attested to the quality of Porter's slate
in June 1829:
In passing down a street a few days since, we were struck with
the appearance of some school slates we saw in Mr. Wilson's
store, and on inquiry found they were manufactured in our own
county. The quality of the slate we think equal if not superior
to any we have seen, and the framing is far better than any
that have come under our notice. They were from Col. Porter's
Quarry and Factory, near the Delaware Water -Gap, where he
now manufactures from 60 to 70 dozen per week.
The chronicler of Lafayette College's history described a classroom in
1835-1836, but failed to mention Porter in connection with the slate used
by students:
His [Washington McCartney's] classroom then was not panelled
with slate blackboards. Its walls were not even wooden boards
painted black, which came later, but there stood projecting
from the wall and supported by three trestles on an angle like
a draftsman's drawing-table, two thick slabs of slate, 4x5
feet. These had been donated by a company at Slateford, Pa.,
which had recently opened the first slate quarry in the Blue
Ridge region. Leaning over these slabs of slate, the boys
would demonstrate their mathematical knowledge to Mr.
McCartney.
A local historian writing in 1845 also gave Porter's slate high praise
Extensive slate quarries have been opened in this township,
near the Delaware, where roofing slate, of a superior quality,
is obtained in large quantities, and a manufactory of school
slates, under the auspices of the Hon. James M. Porter, the
proprietor, has been established, in which, by the aid of
ingenious machinery, slates, of a particular neatness and
excellence, are produced, at a very moderate price.
19. Samuel Hazard, The Register of Pennsylvania, vol. IV,
(Philadelphia, July 1829 to January) p. 64.
20. David Bishop Skillman, The Biography of a College Being the History
of the First Century of the Life of Lafayette College, vol. I (Easton,
Pennsylvania: Lafayette College, 1932), p. 112.
21. Israel Daniel Rupp, History of Northampton Lehigh, Monroe, Carbon
and Schuylkill Counties (Harrisburg: Hickok and Cantine, 1845; reprint
ed., New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, 1971), p. 59.
100
A daybook entitled "Slateford" has been found for the year July 16,
1858 to June 30, 1859. James Madison Porter's name was not found in its
pages, and it is not known which quarry activities in Northampton County
the daybook chronicles. Data concerning Slateford quarrying is available,
however. Names of employees, their tasks, rates of production and pay
are given. Neighbors of the quarry often brought in food stuffs, for
which they received credit for purchases in the company store. The
names of Samuel, Aaron and Peter Pipher appear as having furnished food
22
supplies and making purchases. (See appendix 20 for sample pages of
the Slateford Daybook.)
Porter and Frederick Pipher
James Madison Porter's growing enterprise came into contact with the
Pipher family sometime previous to 1830, the year of Frederick's death.
Because Frederick died intestate, the Orphan's Court ordered his land
sold (land which originally was the western portion of Frederick's father,
Samuel Pipher's estate). The acreage totaled 149 acres and 80 perches,
which meant that Frederick had sold 50 acres of the land he inherited.
James M. Porter was listed as the prospective buyer and a price was
specified, but court records seem to indicate that the administrator of
Frederick's estate, Isaac LaBar, obtained an even higher price from
Porter. The court had settled on a sale price of $2,714.19, but LaBar
obtained a mortgage of $3,194.46 1/2 from Porter, plus annual payments
and a final lump sum payment of $579.54 1/2 plus interest to Frederick's
widow Sarah. It is possible that LaBar got this improved settlement
because of a rental debt that Porter owed Frederick Pipher. The
mortgage records stated that Porter was in arrears $210 rent for the
previous years. Frederick's inventory stated two-and-one-half years rent
22. Daybook, Slateford [Pennsylvania], Joseph Downs Manuscript
Collection, No. 80 x 100, Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum. A
microfilm copy of this daybook should be obtained for deposit in DEWA
files and/or Northampton County repositories.
101
was due from the slate quarry. The rent worth $50, was due October 1,
1830. Thus it is possible that James Madison Porter was quarrying slate
23
on Frederick Pipher's property earlier than 1828.
In 1835 Porter transferred the former Frederick Pipher land to the
Pennsylvania Slate Company for $20,000. This was probably Porter's way
of protecting himself from some of the personal financial risk of holding
various slate quarries in his name alone. By working through the name
of his company, his risk was shared with the other stockholders. One of
the deed provisions was that the company fulfill its indebtedness to
24
Sarah, widow of Frederick Pipher.
Another deed revealed that Peter Pipher, Samuel and Christina's
youngest son, also sold some land, 59 acres and nine perches, to the
Pennsylvania Slate Company in 1836 for $2,500. Peter had earlier
acquired this land from neighbor George LaBar and it was along the
25
Delaware River.
A series of courthouse documents from the 1840s reveal that the
Pennsylvania Slate Company, James M. Porter, and several of his
business partners were in financial difficulties which resulted in the
return of some of the old Samuel Pipher properties to the Pipher family.
Because of an unpaid debt of $793.06 by the Pennsylvania Slate Company
to a Peter Zimmerman, the sheriff seized six pieces of land owned by the
company. This took place in 1844. The sheriff, Peter Steckel, sold the
properties at a sheriff's sale to Samuel Taylor, a business partner of
James Madison Porter, for $1,401. Taylor tried to breathe new life into
23. Mortgage Book 7, pp. 360-361, recorded January 13, 1832, NCE;
"Inventory of the Estate late of Frederick Pipher deceased" filed
September 25, 1830, File 4117, Register of Wills, NCE.
24. Deed Book E-6, pp. 611-613, indenture of April 18, 1835, recorded
December 18, 1839, NCE.
25. Deed Book E-6, pp. 606-608, indenture of April 1, 1836, recorded
December 18, 1839, NCE.
26. Deed Book, B-7, pp. 534-536, recorded August 28, 1844, NCE.
102
the slate enterprise by taking out a mortgage for $16,646.20 with Philip
H. Goepp. Taylor took out a second mortgage on the same six parcels of
land, also in 1844, for $13,124.14, with Jacob Rice. Annotations in the
margin of the mortgage book indicate that Taylor was able to satisfy the
debt from the second mortgage but not the first. He continued to pay
27
Rice even after he had lost the land, until October 30, 1852. Taylor
was forced to sell the land in 1898 and it was purchased by Aaron
Pipher, the son of Peter and Elizabeth, and grandson of Samuel and
Christina. Aaron paid $2,600 to get clear title to the six properties while
28
Taylor remained indebted to Rice and Goepp.
Five of the properties Aaron purchased were near the river while
140 acres were against Blue Mountain, being the western portion of the
original Samuel Pipher farm inherited by Aaron's uncle, Frederick. This
property had a slate quarry on it as well as a dwelling house, log barn
and other outbuildings. Aaron Pipher's son Emory [Emery] held on to
this property and in 1899 sold half of it to his two daughters, Maria and
Mary. This deed mentions an adjacent tract owned by the Enterprise
29
Slate Company. There presently is a quarry located in a creek in this
area known as the Enterprise or Emory Pipher quarry.
No other information concerning the connection between James
Madison Porter and the Piphers is known. Porter evidently quarried slate
on Frederick Pipher's property (the western portion of the original 1790
Samuel Pipher farm) in the late 1820s. At Frederick's death the
Pennsylvania Slate Company bought the property, only to have it sold in
a sheriff's sale to Aaron Pipher in 1844. It is possible that Aaron worked
the quarry during the years he owned the farm. It is also possible that
27. Mortgage Book 10, pp. 298-299, recorded August 27, 1844, NCE.
28. Deed Book, A-8, pp. 168-172, indenture of March 31, 1849, recorded
April 2, 1849, NCE.
29. Deed Book, F-29, pp. 348-351, recorded March 5, 1900, NCE.
103
the Enterprise or Emory Pipher quarry may be the original Porter quarry
on Frederick Pipher land.
Slate Quarrying on Slateford Farm
All of the quarrying thus far discussed was connected with James
Madison Porter and the Pennsylvania Slate Company, and occurred on the
western portion of Samuel Pipher property. Another company, however,
began quarrying on the center portion of the original Pipher property in
the late 1860s. This occurred when Samuel and Christina's grandson
Samuel sold the property in 1868 to the New York and Delaware River
Slate Company.
This company was formed by six men from New Jersey and New
York--Uzal Corey, Julius S. Howell, Theodore D. Howell, Samuel R.
Elton, Richard H. Stearns and Richard D. Wilson. Considering that the
Pipher farm was on a known slate belt and that several successful slate
quarries were in the area, these six businessmen probably had high
aspirations for a profitable slating venture. Slate lands, however, are
not worth more than their surface value until it is proven that slate in
commercially profitable quantities can be quarried. Even so, such
ventures are risky because one quarry may be profitable while one
30
adjoining may not yield much slate.
The New York and Delaware River Slate Company became operational
and by 1871 was being assessed for tax purposes. In that year the 156
acres of land and improvements were assessed at $2,432 while the quarry
value was assessed at $1,000. A horse worth $40 was added, which
brought the value of the slate company's holdings to $3,472. In 1872 and
1873 the quarry and land assessments remained the same, but the horse
30. Behre, Northampton, p. 121.
104
31
was dropped, making the total assessment $3,432. The company was
running into trouble at this point, for in 1872 the principal stock owners
were arguing and a suit was filed by one against the others. It is not
known if they even had a knowledgeable slate expert to manage quarrying
and production. The sheriff of Northampton County seized the land for
back debt in 1873 and sold it to John A. Morison.
On the 1874 tax list the New York and Delaware River Slate
Company's name was mentioned but John Morison was assessed for the
land and the quarry from 1874 to 1879. The land was assessed at $9,360
and the quarry at $1,000. In 1880 the quarry was dropped from the
assessment list and the value of the 156 acres and improvements dropped
32
to $6,000. It is not known if John Morison exploited the quarry's
resources or not, and nothing else is known of the slate quarrying on the
Pipher property. In all likelihood quarrying probably ceased at this
time. Other than Mary Pittenger's remembrances of quarry workers being
boarded on the property, no other documentation has been found which
ties the main farmhouse to the quarry operation.
The history of quarrying in Upper Mount Bethel Township is fraught
with confusion and conflicting evidence. Unfortunately, this is also true
of various geological descriptions of the many Slateford quarries. Names
and dimensions change with each account through the years, and the
histories of most of them are not known. (See historical base map 5 for
historic quarries.) The following descriptions of the known Porter
quarry near Slateford and the two known quarries on historic Slateford
Farm property are offered as guidelines to these quarries' dimensions,
formation and histories of use. The three quarries being considered are:
1. New York and Delaware River Slate Company Quarry, also
called John Morrison's (Morison) Quarry, and in one instance,
the Washington Brown (located on Slateford Farm - Peter Pipher
farm)
31. Elizabeth D. Walters, research note, March 19, 1969, DEWA park
files: "Pennsylvania-Northampton County Land Titles."
32. Ibid.
105
2. Emory Pipher Quarry, also called Enterprise or Batron (located
on Frederick Pipher farm)
3. J. W. Williams' Quarry, also Pennsylvania Slate Company (James
Madison Porter, Samuel Taylor - located southeast of Slateford
Farm near Slateford)
Additionally, a second quarry/pond is located on the Peter Pipher
farm, but its history is not known.
Geologist H. M. Chance described the Delaware River area slate
quarries existing in 1875:
At the Delaware there seems to be but two important beds
of slate that yield material of sufficiently good quality to make a
good roofing slate. . . .
Upon the uppermost bed, or bed No. 1, are situated the
New York and Delaware River slate quarry and the quarry near
the Totts' Gap Road. . . .
The New York and Delaware river slate quarry. -- This
quarry has a working face of about 40 feet. It has yielded
more roofing slate than any other variety although it has a
good bed of school slate from 8 to 10 feet thick.
The dip of the slates in this quarry is 20 1/2°, N. 33° W.
The second bed is 2350 feet below the mountain sandstones
and is opened by the John Williams' quarry and the New Jersey
quarry.
John Williams' quarry. -- This quarry is situated in a very
picturesque ravine about one quarter of a mile west of
Slateford. It has produced but few school slates, though it has
a bed 8 feet thick from which a limited number have been
taken. At present (1874) nothing is being taken out but
roofing slates.
This quarry has been worked so deep that the water
occasions considerable trouble. At the time it was visited
(1874) it was partially filled and access was difficult.
The dip of the cleavage planes is very flat (almost
horizontal) with the exception of ten or twelve feet of rather
harder more sandy slate, in which the cleavage dip is much
more inclined.
106
This is occasioned by the existence of a slide, the
direction of which has coincided with that of the bed plates.
There is no break, and the plane of the slide is filled by a
seam of calcspar from 4 to 12 inches thick.
By an examination of the section on the Pennsylvania side
of the river it will be seen that if the second bed be prolonged
it would outcrop about 1000 feet from the southern end of the
section; this would bring its outcrop exactly where this slate
quarry is situated.
The dip in this quarry is 18° to 20°, N. 35° to 40° W.
R. H. Sanders described the Williams, Morrison and Pipher quarries
in 1883, but also described an additional quarry near Blue Mountain, the
Washington Brown:
Washington Brown's Quarry. -- The quarry is on the slope
of the mountain overlooking the Delaware. The quarry has only
recently been opened. It is 75X75X40 feet, and is 700 feet
below the Oneida sandstone. The slates dip 35° N. 40° W.
cleavage flat. The slates have a good color and are smooth,
only a few have been made.
John Morrison's Quarry. -- The quarry is at the foot of
the steep slope of the mountain, between 800 and 900 feet below
the Oneida sandstone. The quarry was opened in 1877. It is
150X100 feet square, now full of water, probably about 50 feet
deep. There is from five to fifteen feet of Drift on top of the
slates. The slates are decomposed under the drift. Slates dip
20°, N. 40° W. Cleavage flat. The beds are four feet and
under in thickness.
J. W. Williams' Quarry is half a mile northwest of
Slateford. The quarry is 150X150X100 feet, with from 30 to 50
feet of Drift on top, some of the bowlders in the drift are 2
feet in diameter. The thickest bed is 4 feet. The slate dips
20°/N.10°W. Cleavage 2°,S.10°E. The drainage cut shows 150
feet of slate below the quarry. At the factory the ribbon slate
is seen in the bed of the creek. They are about fifty feet
below the quarry. The quarry is not being worked.
This was the first slate quarry opened in Pennsylvania
viz: by Mr. Williams, about the year 1812. . . .
Emory Pipher quarry, a few hundred yards west and
slightly below Morrison's quarry, is an abandoned quarry,
33. Lesley, et al., Geology of Lehigh and Northampton, pp. 148-149.
The quarry near Totts' Gap Road was not described.
107
irregular in shape, covering about 200X100 feet. From the
appearance of the quarry it has not been worked for some
years. The beds seen are small, but only part of the face
could be seen as most of the sides have fallen in. The dip in
the south and central part of the quarry is flat; at the north
edge the slate dips 20°,N.40°W.; the cleavage 20° south. At
the school-house „on the road passing this quarry a thin slaty
sandstone shows.
In 1927 Charles Behre Jr. added further confusion to the quarries'
identification when he described the Washington Brown and Williams
quarries, but not the Pipher or Morrison. He also identified a much
smaller unnamed quarry.
QUARRY
Location and dimensions. -- This is a small rectangular
opening measuring about 40 feet in a northeast direction by 80
feet in a northwest direction; it shows 20 feet of slate above
the water level. The hole lies west of and about 100 feet above
the Delaware Water Gap highway, immediately behind a house.
Only a small dump is visible.
Geology. -- The beds strike N. 45° E. and dip from 22° to
37° N, flattening northward. The cleavage strikes N. 45° E.
and dips 10-25° N., also flattening northward. The beds are
from three to six inches thick; a few are two inches thick and
so sandy as to show no slaty cleavage. A few fractures were
observed dipping two or three degrees more steeply than the
cleavage and in the same direction.
History and development. -- The quarry has long been
abandoned and is now full of water. Nothing is known of its
history, but it appears not to have been worked for at least
thirty years.
WASHINGTON BROWN QUARRY
Location and dimensions. -- This is an old quarry near an
isolated farm house which overlooks Delaware River and is
situated on the plain at the foot of the talus slope of Blue
34. Lesley, et al., Geology of Lehigh and Northampton, pp. 86,88. Note
the discrepancy in the date of the first slate quarry opening in
Pennsylvania. Other sources cite a much earlier date for a quarry in the
Peach Bottom district in Lancaster and York counties. R. H. Sanders
also reprinted an 1858 description of the Williams quarry by H. D.
Rogers. See appendix 10.
108
Mountain. It measures 125 feet in a northwesterly direction by
50 feet toward the northeast and is roughly rectangular. Its
walls rise only about three feet above the water with which the
hole is now filled. Its depth must be at least 100 feet, judging
by the size of the dump.
Geology. -- The beds strike N. 42° E., dipping 21° NW.
The slate appears to be of fair quality, not heavily ribboned,
but there are some sandy beds. The material on the dump
shows considerable rusting, but an absence of heavy jointing
and little indication of quartz or calcite stringers. The
cleavage strikes N. 25° W. and dips 18° SW.
History. -- This is probably the quarry described by R.
H. Sanders and examined by him at some time between 1874 and
1878. That investigator said that the quarry had just been
opened at the time of this visit.
WILLIAMS QUARRY
Location and dimensions. -- This quarry is in the valley of
Slateford Creek about half a mile from its mouth. It is an
amphitheater, whose sides are formed by the valley walls.
Sixty feet of slate are exposed on the creek's southwest wall.
The opening measures 180 by 150 feet.
Geology. -- At the south end of the cut the bedding
strikes N. 50° E. dips 20° NW.; in the north end it strikes N.
50° W. and dips 20° SW. The cleavage has a strike of N. 60°
E., and dips 20-25° S. It appears, therefore, that both ends
of the cut are on the under limb of a fold the axial plane of
which dips gently southward; at the southern end of the
opening the dip is north, as this hypothesis would require,
while at the northern end, preparing for a rise over the axial
plane of the complementary fold below, a southward dip
appears.
A set of small, rather inconspicuous, calcite-filled joints
strike N. 70° E. and dips 36° SE., just under a calcite-filled
fault, which appears on the south wall of the quarry near the
creek level, striking N. 20° E. and dipping 16° NW. A small
calcareous seam parallel to the bedding shows the same minute
crumpling and faulting already described as common in these
calcareous stringers.
History and development. -- This quarry was described by
Rogers (See appendix 21.) as being operated in 1858 by the
Pennsylvania Slate Company. It was first opened in 1832 by
Sam Taylor, then came into the hands of John Williams in 1850,
and is at present on the property.^ of Frank Williams of
Slateford. It is not now being worked.
35. Behre, Northampton, pp. 126-128,
109
Another twentieth century geologist, Jack Epstein, described the
Pipher, Williams and the unnamed quarry in 1970. He also described the
Washington Brown, but cites Sanders' references to the Morrison and
Brown.
Emory Pipher quarry
Known locally as the Enterprise, this quarry is located in
a tributary of Slateford Creek. Most bedrock exposures are
flooded, but small outcrops on the northwest side show bedding
to dip 9° SE. and cleavage to dip 22° SE. A few thin
graywacke beds were seen. Both bedding and cleavage are
folded in a small arch, over 10 feet across, which trends S. 31°
W., and plunges about 1° SW. Bedding on the northwest side
of the arch is N. 28° E., 14° NW., and cleavage is N. 17° E.,
9° NW. Dumps surrounding the quarry are about 20 feet high.
The bedrock is overlain by a few feet of till.
Quarry
This small circular opening is about 40 feet wide. A small
creek flows through it, and it is now the site of a reservoir for
local water supply. Slate and some graywacke beds are
exposed. Bedding is N. 44° E., 22° NW.; cleavage is N. 84°
E., 11° SE., with slight variation. Of particular interest is the
divergence in strike between these beds and beds in the
Shawangunk Formation immediately to the north.
Washington Brown quarry
In this 100-foot long oval-shaped opening about 8 feet of
slate and interbedded graywacke are exposed. In the southeast
corner bedding strikes N. 31° E. and dips 20° NW. The
attitude of cleavage is N. 12° W. , 14° SW. This is part of an
apparent cleavage arch with cleavage dipping to the northwest
as the contact with the Shawangunk Formation is approached.
Sanders referred to this opening as the John Morrison's
quarry. The Washington Brown quarry, according to Prime, is
the small opening 2,600 feet northeast of this quarry in the
Portland quadrangle. [See next description for this quarry.]
Quarry
This quarry is about 200 feet above Delaware River. It is
square, 100 feet on a side, and about 40 feet deep. Bedding
dips moderately to the northwest and cleavage dips in the same
direction at a gentler angle. Bedding, however, is not
overturned as will be discussed later.
110
Williams quarry
This quarry is located in Slateford Creek and is about 600
feet long. At the western end the creek falls over the
80-foot-high wall of the quarry and at the eastern end it flows
between 25-foot-high walls of slate that are 10 feet apart.
Approximately 80 feet of drift overlie the slate. The slate is
underlain by a massive 20-foot-thick unit of graywacke
sandstone and siltstone and 50 feet of interbedded slate and
graywacke that is exposed 1,500 feet downstream. The slates
in the quarry are also overlain by graywackes to the northwest
showing that the quarry is in the Ramseyburg Member of the
Martinsburg Formation. . . . Bedding fairly constant in the
quarry, but the dip of cleavage changes from 11° SW. in the
eastern end to 44° SE. in the western end. In the southwest
corner of the opening, about 2 inches of quartz is found in a
slickensided zone parallel to bedding. Microscarps indicate that
the overlying beds moved W. 53° W. Small crenulations in the
zone whose axes trend perpendicular to the slickensides were
also produced by this movement.
In 1974 Epstein wrote further descriptions of the Pipher, unnamed
and Washington Brown quarries. He again mentioned the discrepancy
over the identity of the Brown quarry, noting that it was referred to as
the Brown quarry by Behre in 1927, but as the Morrison quarry by
37
Sanders in 1883.
As previously stated, no thorough history of Northampton County's,
and in particular, Upper Mount Bethel's quarry industry has been
written. Extant sources agree, however, that the township's industry
was one of the earliest in the state and that the county's industry was
one of the largest suppliers in the nation. The three known quarries on
Peter and Frederick Pipher property contributed to Northampton County's
preeminent role as a slate supplier in the nineteenth century.
36. Jack B. Epstein, Geology of the Stroudsburg Quadrangle and
Adjacent Areas Pennsylvania- New Jersey U. S. Geological Survey, open
file report, 1971 .
37. , Miscellaneous Field Studies Map-578 A, U. S.
Geological Survey 1974. All of these geological surveys describe other
quarries located near Slateford and elsewhere in Northampton County.
111
Technology of Slate
A general description of slate and methods of slate quarrying is
offered here as background information concerning the quarrying which
occurred on Slateford Farm. No specific data on quarrying techniques at
Slateford Farm has been found but general data will provide an
understanding of the process.
Slate consists of quartz and silicate minerals. It is a microgranular
crystalline rock which is formed by metamorphism of shale. Slate's
prominant characteristic is its ability to cleave along parallel and closely
spaced planes which gives slate its industrial value. Other properties of
slate include color, hardness, toughness, and electrical and chemical
resistance.
Slate's color is of great importance. Preferred colors for roofing
slate include deep brick red, grayish purple, olive green, gray green,
dull-bluish green, brown or mottled in different color combinations. The
different colors in slate are the result of different mineral elements such
as carbon in black slate or chlorite in dark-green slate. The slate near
Blue Mountain at the Delaware River has "characteristic dark color of
38
ordinary roofing slate."
Other factors influence the quality of slate for use, such as
cleavage, grain, shear zones and joints.
Cleavage determines how well the slate will split into large very
thin slabs such as blackboards. The grain, a plane of
breakage usually at right angles to the cleavage, determines the
ease with which usable blocks of slate can be broken out of a
quarry. Widely spaced joints are an aid in quarrying, but
38. Mineral Resources of the Appalachian Region Professional Paper 580,
U. S. Geological Survey (Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1968) p. 204; Lesley, et al., Geology of Lehigh and Northampton,
p. 148.
112
numerous shear zones and closely spaced joints generally make
slate worthless as dimension stone [useable for roofing].
An 1883 geological survey detailed quarrying methods in Northampton
County. These methods could have been used by the New York and
Delaware River Company less than ten years before on the Pipher farm.
During those years the quarries were worked by day labor, by contract
or by a mixed method of day labor and contract. In contract work the
owner let out the quarry and agreed to pay a set price for the slate.
The other more common method of contract was for the owner to let out
sections of the quarry to workers who quarried and dressed the slate.
The owners then hoisted the blocks and delivered them to the splitting
shanties. Machinery needed to work a quarry in 1883 included a derrick,
pump, mine cars, a short track, waste boxes, chains, drills, hammers,
40
crowbars, sledges and splitting chisels.
The first operation involved in starting a quarry was stripping the
surface deposit. The depth of this material varied from 10 to 50 feet and
averaged 20. The work was usually done with a pick and shovel.
Horses and carts were used to move the dirt and weathered slate outcrop.
The slate blocks were then quarried by drilling and blasting. Skill and
good judgment on the quarryman's part was required in positioning the
drilling holes to move a large amount of rock with the fewest holes
41
possible, and without shattering the rock.
The loosened block was then hoisted out of the quarry by the
derrick and taken to the shanty for splitting. The thin pieces of slate
were then squared off into regular sizes by dressing machines. There
was, however, an "old method" of dressing slate by hand:
39. Mineral Resource, p. 204.
40. Lesley, et al., Geology of Lehigh and Northampton, pp. 138-139.
41. Ibid., p. 140.
113
The old method of dressing slates which is only used in a
few localities is this: A block of wood, some three or four feet
long, has fastened into one end of it a knife edge, standing
vertical, and parallel with the length of the block. The
dresser uses a long heavy knife, with a vent handle. He cuts
off with the knife two edges of the slate at right angles to each
other. Then, with a stick that has a sharp pointed nail in one
end and notches cut in it for the different lengths of slate, he
marks the other two sides and trims them with the knife. This
way requires more skill and is not as rapid as by the
machine.
Larger quarries at Bangor and Slatington, Pennsylvania had facilities
to saw and plane the slate, primarily for processing of tile, tanks,
mantles and billiard tables. The blocks of slate were split, then sawed
by circular, reciprocating, or hand saws, and then placed on a planing
machine which shaved the slate to a proper thickness. The slate was
then rubbed and polished. (See appendix 22 for details concerning the
machinery used in hoisting, drilling practices and splitting in 1883.)
A description of quarrying methods more than 40 years later was
provided by geologist Charles Behre Jr. In 1927 Northampton County
was still a primary supplier of the nation's slate and new quarrying
methods were being added to the old. As a quarry was opened or
extended in any direction the overburden was removed and hauled away.
This was usually still being done by hand, but by 1927 steam shovels
were being used. Compressed air drills were used, although drilling
could shatter the slate. For this reason, drilling occurred in less
valuable slate beds. Blasting by dynamite and hand firing was done,
although its use was diminishing by 1927 because blasting shattered the
slate. Channeling machines were being employed in 1927 instead of
"cruder methods" to cut the slate away from the quarry sides. The use
43
of these machines depended upon the slate's structure and toughness.
42. Ibid., pp. 141-142.
43. Behre, Northampton, pp. 273-274.
114
Techniques used in removing slate from the quarry floor varied
because of the slate's structure and the quarry operator's preferences,
but generally the first step taken was to "lay bare the cleavage surface"
at the floor or base of the opening. In Northampton County quarries the
floor was rarely horizontal, it generally sloped at angles less than 25°.
The next step was cutting a block:
Slate is now removed from one corner or part of the
quarry to furnish a more or less vertical face, the "key" face,
by means of which the rest of the slate making up the floor can
be attacked. A channeling machine or drilling and broaching
device is now used, or a series of holes is drilled and a charge
fired so as to break the quarry. A channel cut is then made
approximately at right angles to this line of fracture. Another
fracture is induced along the grain, but far enough away from
the first to give the desired width to the slab. There is now a
well-defined rhombic block, three sides of which are bounded
by the fractures described above, and the fourth by the
vertical "key" face.
A series of holes were then drilled into the "key" face so that all
the holes were in the same cleavage plane. A powder charge was
exploded in the holes which feed the slate from that below the holes.
The freed block was then pried up by workers who used crowbars as
levers in unison. The block was then ready to be moved out of the
quarry.
In 1927 all Northampton County quarries were equipped with steel or
wooden masts which supported cables thrown across the quarry opening.
These masts were anchored by heavy guy-ropes and the cables could
carry from three to five tons. A chain, suspended from a carrier on the
cable, was attached directly to the slate block. Drums mounted in engine
houses were used in the hoisting. Workers in the quarry called or
motioned to a "signal boy" who was stationed in a shed on the quarry's
edge. The signal boy then passed along directions to the hoisting
engineer by voice or by bell signals. Once the blocks were out of the
44. Ibid., p. 275,
115
quarry they were placed on tram cars to be hauled to a mill for
processing into blackboards or structural or electrical slate. If roofing
slate were to be made the blocks were taken to small houses called
45
"shanties. "
Blocks sent to the shanties had to be cut into smaller sizes by saws
for easier handling. Pieces one and a half or two feet in area by five
inches or less in thickness were then carried into the shanties.
According to Behre:
Here the splitters swab the blocks with water. A thin,
wide-bladed, and very flexible chisel is then worked into the
slate along cleavage cracks by gentle tapping with a mallet.
When the chisel is finally well inserted another is commonly
entered in like manner, prying apart the same two cleavage
surfaces. Gentle tapping and deeper forcing of the chisels
finally induces the slate to part along the desired plane.
After the slate was split to the thickness of roofing slate it was
trimmed into desired sizes by a heavy steel blade operated by a treadle.
A spring pole placed outside the shanty made the blade swing. Generally
the slate was "cut out to the largest size possible consonant with the
standard roofing sizes." Metal plates attached to the trimming machine
were attached to permit the rapid gauging of the dimensions for which the
slate could best be used.
When soft belt slate blocks were sent to the mill they were graded
according to color, which determined their use. At the mill the blocks
were reduced in size, planed to a smooth surface and polished or buffed.
Slate pieces were also shaped and drilled, according to their use.
Blackboards, made from thick beds of light gray or greenish gray slate,
were split like roofing slate, sand-polished and buffed. School slate was
made from darker slate but not as dark as carbonaceous or siliceous
45. Ibid., pp. 277, 279
46. Ibid., p. 280.
116
slate, also known as "ribboned." Like roofing slate, school slate was
split and then trimmed with a rotating saw. The size of the slates
ranged from 4x6 inches to 9 x 13 inches. Each slate was bevelled,
42
shaved to a desired thickness (1/6, 1/7, 1/8 inch), buffed and framed.
Roofing slate was cut to many different sizes and specifications.
(See appendix 23.) It was sold by a "square," which was defined as the
slate necessary to cover 100 square feet with a three-inch overlap. The
standard thickness was 3/16-inch, but thicker slates could be supplied.
Northampton County soft belt roofing slates weighed 650 to 700 pounds
per square and were blue-gray in color.
Early methods of processing slate have changed with the evolution of
machinery and other technologies, but the 1883 and 1927 descriptions
provide clues as to how quarrying was once carried out. James Madison
Porter's quarries produced school slates, as did the New York and
Delaware River quarry on the Pipher property. Roofing slate was the
leading product of both the soft and hard belt districts in Northampton
County. These slates were probably produced by methods described
above. Porter's workmen probably removed overburden by hand, used
treadle-driven saws to cut slate, dressed slate with knives, and used
horse- or steampower to hoist blocks from the quarries. Slateford Farm
44
was once the scene of frenzied activity in the pursuit of quality slate.
47. Ibid., pp. 281-283, 285, 287-288.
48. Ibid., pp. 290-291.
49. For further information on slate quarrying in Northampton County
see T. Nelson Dale, et al., Slate in the United States U. S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 586, (Washington, D. C, Government Printing Office,
1914) pp. 96-104. Quarrying in the state of Pennsylvania, including the
Pen Argyl and Bangor beds, is described in Mansfield Merriman, "The
Slate Regions of Pennsylvania," Stone XVII no. 2, (July 1898): 77-90.
117
Summary
The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area has been part of
the National Park System since 1965 and the Slateford Farm was acquired
the next year. The farm's historical and cultural resources are derived
from its location in Southeastern Pennsylvania, an area settled early in
the 1700s and rich in ethnicity and agricultural and quarrying activity.
The future farm's land was part of the Walking Purchase of 1737 and
became part of Northampton County in 1750, and later, Upper Mount
Bethel Township.
The earliest settlers in the region arrived in the 1730s and a few of
them settled for a time near the future Slateford Farm. The township
and the county became known for their agricultural richness, for the
farming skill of their German population, and for the high-quality and
quantity of their slate products. Slateford Farm land and underlying
slate beds contributed to these reputations.
The owners of Slateford Farm came from several walks of life. Most
prominant were the Pipher farmers. Yet the province's proprietors and a
surveyor general also owned the property, if only for speculative
purposes. Amos Strettell, his daughters and their husbands were
wealthy and contributed to the colony's cultural, business and judicial
affairs. The Morris brothers even owned the Hopewell Furnace (now the
Hopewell Village National Historic Site) for a short period of time. In
later years the farm was owned by a New Jersey farmer, and wealthy New
Yorkers who took a business gamble on the land's slate potential.
Slateford Farm's value is in the scenic beauty of the view from the
farmhouse's front porch, in the farm's proximity to the Delaware River
and the Delaware Water Gap, in the utilization of both the farm's land for
agriculture and of the slate bed underneath, and in the knowledge that
several generations of Pipher children were born and raised there.
Slateford Farm represents stability and continuity, as seen in the farming
118
of the land, and risk, as seen in the opening of the quarries. Slateford
Farm's history is integral to that of its surrounding region, state and
nation.
Interpretation at Slateford Farm focuses on both farming and
quarrying. Costumed interpreters demonstrate slate splitting and discuss
nineteenth century farming with visitors. The resources at Slateford
Farm are rich and varied, and are a fascinating aspect of the Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Area.
119
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
A study of the slate quarrying business in Northampton County, and
specifically in Upper Mount Bethel Township, is needed. A history of the
quarries near Slateford would involve much research in the Northampton
County deed records in an effort to trace James Madison Porter's various
land transactions. Additionally, the missing nineteenth century slate
industry records may surface at Lafayette College in Easton, although
this is doubtful.
The John Williams quarry in Slateford Creek Gorge has a 200-300
foot tunnel around the site, which was reputed to have been used to
divert the flow of the stream while quarrying operations were in progress
in the bed of the creek. Since this location was probably one of the first
quarrying operations in Northampton County, the diversion tunnel would
add an interesting dimension to the interpretive story at Slateford Farm.
The tunnel warrants further investigation.
Further research needs to be done on the activities of Amos Strettell
and the Morrises on the farm before Samuel Pipher purchased it. At this
time it is not known where or if a Morris farmstead stood, when buildings
may have been built, or the fate of these structures before or after
Pipher bought the farm. It cannot be ascertained from the 1790 deed if
Pipher purchased a well-developed farm or if he purchased undeveloped
farm land.
The actions of the various Samuel and Christina Pipher descendents
require further scrutiny. The sons, grandsons and great grandsons and
their spouses bought and sold property until after 1900 and some of this
property was part of the original farm. Such deed research would
further define the changes in property holdings throughout the years.
This research might also provide further clues as to the history of the
slate quarrying occurring on and around the farm.
121
Efforts were made during the research for this study to contact
Alice Munsch, who is living at this writing in New York City. She is
ailing and elderly, and further efforts to reach her may be successful.
Munsch was an amateur photographer and she must possess early to
mid-twentieth century photographs of the farmstead.
Further research can be done on the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century absentee owners of the property-Morison and
Reynolds. Emphasis in research was not placed on these individuals and
some of the conflicting evidence provided by the Pipher descendants can
be carefully weighed if more was known of both landlords and renters.
Historic maps located in Harrisburg or Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
may provide a basis for a further defined historical base map for
Slateford Farm. No new maps were found in the Easton repositories
which provided other than very general information about the Delaware
Water Gap and Slateford area.
122
REPOSITORIES VISITED DURING RESEARCH
Doylestown, Pennsylvania
Spruance Library, The Bucks County Historical Society
East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
Kemp Library, East Stroudsburg State College
Easton, Pennsylvania
Henry F. Marx Local History and Genealogy Collection, Easton Area
Public Library
David Bishop Skillman Library, Lafayette College
Northampton County Government Center
Northampton County Historical and Genealogical Society
Lakewood, Colorado
National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Office Library
New York City, New York
New York Public Library
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Federal Archives and Records Center
Historical Society of Pennsylvania
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
Monroe County Historical Society
Monroe County Library
Washington, D.C.
National Archives
Winterthur, Delaware
Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum and Gardens
123
PERSONS CONSULTED DURING RESEARCH
Barbara Adams, archivist, Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum,
Winterthur, Delaware
Jim Ashton, The New York Historical Society, New York, New York
Penelope Hartshorne Batcheler, Independence National Historical Park,
Philadelphia, National Park Service
Clark Beck, public services librarian, Special Collections and Archives,
Rutgers University Libraries, Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
Nathalie F. Cooper, corresponding secretary, The Somerset County
Historical Society, Somerville, New Jersey
Maurice S. Dimmick, director of court services, Northampton County
Government Center, Easton, Pennsylvania
Emerson Eckrote, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
Division of Land Records, William Penn Memorial Museum and Archives
Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Terry Price Gangaware, librarian, Henry F. Marx Local History and
Genealogy Collection, Easton Area Public Library, Easton, Pennsylvania
Charlotte Cyr Jewell, Portland, Pennsylvania
E. Lee McMillen, Easton, Pennsylvania
Matilda Bartow McMillen, Easton, Pennsylvania
124
Terry A. McNealy, librarian, Spruance Library, The Bucks County
Historical Society, Doylestown, Pennsylvania
Jane S. Moyer, Northampton County Historical and Genealogical Society,
Easton, Pennsylvania
Linda Stanley, archivist, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
James S. Yolton, associate professor of Geology, Upsala College, East
Orange, New Jersey
125
CHAIN OF TITLE FOR SLATEFORD FARM
1. September 1737 Walking Purchase
This transaction transferred the land from the Delaware Indians to
the Penns. Nicholas Scull surveyed the boundaries of the tract.
2. August 22, 1753 Thomas and Richard Penn to Nicholas Scull. 391
1/4 acres E60.12.10
3. July 4, 1754 Nicholas Scull to Amos Strettell. 391 1/4 acres (A copy
of this deed could not be found in Easton.)
4. 1780 Amos Strettell to daughters Ann and Frances Strettell Morris.
Strettell left the property to his daughters in his will. 391 1/4
acres
5. April 17, 1790 Cadwalader and Ann Morris, Benjamin and Frances
Morris to Samuel Piper. 391 1/4 acres E782.10 (As stated in the
text, various spellings of Pipher exist in the historic literature.)
6. August 1812 Samuel Piffer to Peter Piffer. Samuel left the center
section of the farm to his son in his will. Acreage not provided in
will .
7. April 17, 1841 Peter Pipher and wife to Samuel Pipher. 199 acres
109 perches $7,500
8. December 18, 1868 Samuel Pipher and wife to Julius S. Howell, et al.
181 acres 112 perches $25,000
9. December 27, 1873 Enos Werkheiser to John A. Morison. 181 acres
112 perches $20,000 The land was sold at a public sale by the
sheriff of Northampton County.
126
10. September 26, 1913 John A. Morison executor (Robert S. Morison) to
Edwin G. Reynolds. 181 acres 112 perches $1.00
11. May 5, 1924 Edwin G. Reynolds to Charles M. Munsch. 181 acres
112 perches $3,000
12. January 27, 1937 Charles M. Munsch to Alice M. Munsch. 181 acres
112 perches $1,800
13. 1966 Alice M. Munsch to U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 169.38
acres
1966 Fred W. Keifaber to U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 4.52
acres (This section of land was part of Alice Munsch's purchase from
her parents. )
14. November 10, 1978 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to National Park
Service. 173.9 acres (Section 316 of the National Parks and
Recreation Act--the "Omnibus Act"--transferred corps land to the
National Park Service.)
127
ci Sr
— CD
01 —
c
-c 2
0)
u u
L
is 5
P
0)
**"''
.E
c
Si
u
tj)
L_
L.
"O
■^ t-
cu
o
c
m ™
c
ro
>
Q-
c
o
L.
^3
2 <-
l/l
c
o
CD
a
nt ! —
nj
CL
CO 2
a. aj
O tO
4- (T>
ai .~ T
UJ CM
l_ TJ ■""
> -n 9-
< o> ce
u. % <A
)
/
c
ro
1
r
o
L.
c
CD
c
<_
L.
c
"D 1-
0)
CD
<
L. 3
■? >
CQ
O *->
I- •—
L.
■<- c
E
o a:
x:
c
c
cu
cu cu
ro u
aj
CD
4-
Is
*" id
o cu
ro
<
o
L.
10 £
l.
*-»
C
<D
4-
o
c
E
o
aj
N
LU
X
cu
i*-
4—
LU
0)
l/l
*J o
CD CM
X) >
u
o
o
CO X)
cu
+->
CD
>
L.
o
E
E
L.
01
E
o
-C
5
> CD
— CD
o
o>
00 C
o>
l/l
i/i
i- nj
to
LU
Q-
oo
tJii
CU CD
C CQ
c
o cu
u cu
l/l
or *
cq ro
CQ X)
< cu
E
|
cu
l/>
o
01
-Q
ID
c cu .y
_ .2 _ .E lu
CU *-> Ol *j
-,jDUl(DU1a)_rD
cDid-l^--CC0cd
*
cu
a
a. "i
Si
LO U
"O ' c rD
CU ^ t *j
u a© h tt ~
«- Opi ^ r -Q
2 -Q o
a a.
JZ
r
u
o
en
cu
U)
r
cu
-l:
o
h
CQ
128
CO
in
--->-*"
< oc 0 o
Q < crH
LL uj <
Z I- "J
3 Q <*
OCC > uj
CO u. oc -J
LU < <
o
i&fc
«f s
3
:£>
- ~ . „ '- — "•
- X
i - \
■ • . ' \ v
- ' ...'. — ■ "'"V ;
■J vv
. \\ V '''■■•» >'
f~ -■ • t i/lr-:.. U-
= .j \ .
Ml
^V
■«'■ // .7,\.-- . : ' '2
(.1 /(; ' »i
1:^^»^
' l^-\-
~^^^^;^^-: V
i/ .
4
.1 ; ,
'A v \ ■ v
/ , '
\\\' ' .- Kn ... V.'!
I- ". V\\\\ . "v ' X> ->V> '{' >V\''\\ v - ■ 1' °,\
■*. :..
X
~\\~\ "^.V' ^v ^N / '■' ■■■:■■ v \ \ V i» , .
CM
5
}, XX:\ '. ' '<X i: s
.X *X.--. ~:.
■■ ■ Xi . ^J""'
^xxxx^--^" ;
- '■'"'?.;•- '/'A/' " X
AX*< • ' <X /^
/'7 X„,
X/'X'- ^
*#;*;
ti ----- - ■'•:■»' - \ ■ t' X *>. « X^ <
o3
LLI
IT) ^ ^z
r>s oc (j o
r <ii-
li- UJ <
1 |_ UJ
> Q <S
<f O m1 §
Q uj < <
< "z J Ul<
CO Q Z a
SC*xi
:&^^
', V'
-so
: ■_■-*"--.£• sr*\
-.v
' . ,1
t ■ v \ Ma - °
-J
-v
-|:\
v
m:.::%
.V-
Vx \
I'll!
o <
* ... ' < \ !,V\ \ ' \ H ■ fi : V ; v **/? - -X' / B
a /
/
1 1 1
y
^ v*
x ^
S
:- v
.■!-v'-V
V i
■ \i.h'
r
\, W.JV;
HISTORICAL BASE MAP 3
Slateford
§ A Cabin
B ^pringl-vTUfe
C Main hk?u^-
D term
E Orc^rA
F frivft
G C\r&r&r<£
H Umc. K-iln
P5C/W3£> \<*&/ '£20-25,0X0
Z&C? ^XP
This map represents the Samuel and Elizabeth Pipher farm prior to their
selling the property to the New York and Delaware River Slate Company.
Extensive research in local and county records and documents, and
secondary sources has not provided adequate data to make a definitive
determination about the number, exact locations (in most instances), or
precise dimensions or appearances of several structures and other cultural
resources at the Pipher farm during that family's three generations of
ownership from 1790 to 1868. The location of the main house,
springhouse and cabin are known as they are extant. The barn
foundations are extant, but the appearance of the barn is not known. A
granary was mentioned in the 1868 deed of sale, but its exact location is
not known. An historic privy is assumed to be located somewhere near
the main house, but its exact location is not known. An orchard was
located on the farm, but its exact location and total acreage is not
known. Extant ruins of a lime kiln mark that structure's precise
location. The exact configuration of the historic fields is not known, but
the historic stone rows delineate partial farm boundaries and fields. The
entrance road to the central farm core is believed to be historic, but its
precise configuration is not known.
133
r
HISTORICAL BASE MAP 4
Slateford
/
fcXfcHN£* COWD\X\OY¥?
KEY
/
A C3b\n
"Si*,*.. "*ft
C Main H^uex^
D ^ar^c/i^arn
E ^uarru-
F VJop^heA
G ^lafe ^harrt^.
H \cc Vv^txz
J Lime K-iln
K zx&ac Few?
ANNOTATIONS FOR HISTORICAL BASE MAP 4
A. Cabin -- built c. 1800-1810 by Samuel Pipher. This structure was
renovated in 1873, altered by Charles M. Munsch and stabilized by the
National Park Service in 1979. Much of the work performed in 1979
reversed Munsch's alterations. The work included: roof repairs,
repointing of stone chimney and foundation walls, rebuilding of brick
chimney, removal of imitation log siding, repair of entrance hood,
replacement of sills, studs, doors and windows, removal of concrete
bathroom and entrance slabs, and drainage grading.
B. Springhouse -- This stone structure was built in 1827 by Peter
Pipher. The springhouse underwent structural change when concrete was
poured on the floors and milk can troughs, and the upper roof structure
was replaced.
C. Main House -- The main farmhouse was built in 1833 by Peter
Pipher. A slate roof, direct access to the northwest bedroom, and an
outside door to the northwest first floor room were added in 1873.
Buff-colored cement stucco was added by Charles M. Munsch. Portions of
the front and side porch were screened in 1969.
D. Old Barn Site -- Reference to the barn was made in 1868 when
Samuel and Elizabeth Pipher sold the farm to the New York and Delaware
River Slate Company. Reference was also made to a granary being
somewhere on the property. A concrete roof was placed over the remnant
stone walls by Charles M. Munsch, who then used the structure as a
garage. He used salvaged iron rails, possibly from a nearby quarry, to
support the concrete roof.
E. Quarry -- The New York and Delaware River Slate Company opened
and operated this quarry near the core farmstead from 1868-1873.
Subsequent farm owner John A. Morison paid taxes on the quarry until
135
1879. A much smaller quarry/pond is also on the property. It is
shallowly flooded over a sediment fill, and was dammed for domestic water
supply. This excavation's history is not known.
F. Woodshed -- This structure was built in the late nineteenth century,
possibly by John A. Morison.
G. Slate Shanty -- Omega G. East, chief of interpretation at Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Area, purchased the shanty in Bangor,
Pennsylvania and placed it on the property in the early 1970s.
H. Ice House -- Only the foundations exist for this wood frame
structure, built by Charles M. Munsch sometime after 1924. The ice
house had a gable roof and the walls were covered with horizontal
slabbing with vertical slabs in each corner and in the gable ends.
I. Outhouse -- This structure was brought onto the property by
Omega East sometime in the 1970s. The location of the historic outhouse
is not known, but in 1970 Mary Pitenger remembered an outhouse being
located between the woodhouse and springhouse.
J. Lime Kiln -- Remnants of a stone lime kiln are located in the woods
behind the main house. It is probable that the kiln dates to the Pipher
family occupancy, and may have been used as late as the Munsch
ownership.
K. Stone Rows -- Extensive stone pile rows mark partial boundaries of
the Peter Pipher farm, and probably date to that period. The rows also
delineate boundaries of fields.
L. Fields -- The exact location of all the fields utilized by the Piphers
and subsequent Slateford Farm owners is not known, but the stone rows
do mark several boundaries. Photographs taken during the Munsch
occupancy of the farm reveal that many of these fields located between
the main farm house and the Cyr farmstead were open and farmed.
136
M. Cyr Farmstead -- Charles M. Munsch built the farmhouse, which
became the home of the Louis and Lottie Cyr family who tenant-farmed
Slateford Farm. The farmstead includes the main house, storage shed,
chicken coops, small frame storage building, corn cribs, barn and
garage. The Cyr house has no architectural significance.
N. Kiefaber House -- This house was built c. 1925 by Fred W.
Kiefaber. There are no outbuildings and the house has no architectural
or historical significance.
Other features extant or no longer extant on the Slateford Farm site:
1. Entrance Road to the farm core area -- This gravel road,
approaching the main farm house from the southeast, may be the historic
entrance to the farm. The Piphers may have used it to reach a wagon
road located next to the Delaware River. In summer 1985 NPS
archeologists found probable nineteenth century terracing and a road bed
with an intact stone culvert, locacted downhill of the barn foundations.
2. Double Mining Cart and Rails -- This iron and wood cart was
brought onto the property by National Park Service staff, as were the
iron rails. The cart is rapidly deteriorating, being openly exposed to the
weather. The rails are strewn along a path to the north of the slate
shanty.
3. Garden -- In 1970 Mary Pittenger mentioned a garden being located
in the yard to the southwest of the main house, between the house and
the barn.
4. Corral -- This structure, located in front of the main house and
extending to the garage, was built by the Youth Conservation Corps in
1974-1975.
137
5. National Park Service Road -- This road was built in 1970.
6. Tower Foundations -- Four footings of concrete are all that remain of
this structure, which perhaps was a radio tower.
7. Woodhouse -- The location of this woodhouse, mentioned by Mary
Pittenger in 1970 and presumed a different structure from the extant
woodshed, is not known. Pittenger stated there used to be a woodshed
and wood pile to the right, or northeast, of the main house.
8. Chicken House -- The existence of a chicken house was mentioned
by Mary Pittenger in 1970. It stood between the woodhouse and the
spring house.
9. Barn Outhouse -- This outhouse was mentioned in Mary Pittenger's
1970 interview. Its exact location is not known.
10. Slate Walks -- These walks were mentioned in Mary Pittenger's 1970
interview. She remembered a slate walk leading from the main house yard
to the barn. Other walks led to the spring house, cabin and woodhouse.
Remnants of a slate walk are located behind the main house.
11. Tennis Courts -- Charles M. Munsch built tennis courts behind the
main house. Their exact location is not known and no visible remnants
exist.
12. Main House Yard Fence -- This fence was mentioned by Mary
Pittenger in an 1970 interview. No remnants are visible.
13. Swimming Pool -- In summer 1985 NPS archeologists discovered a
stone foundation east of the barn foundations which may be a remnant of
a reputed Charles M. Munsch swimming pool.
138
14 Apple Orchard -- An apple orchard was mentioned in Samuel Pipher's
1812 will, but its location is not known. Mary Pittenger remembered an
apple orchard being located by the garden towards the mountain.
15. Slate and Stone Benches -- Two benches are located underneath the
tree next to the main house. Their origin is not known.
139
• v r
>*..**
5 ^<
S < z
DC 0 o
< *5
U- uj <
|_ UJ
to "- K rf
7 ■&& **lVE! <,'#V S H §o
v:- {^/^b ■ o
\ "#! s o
o h-
..,!'. V,-:-.. .,-,-,. /C^^rv-rv-r—\'/'
l ! - -
J*
>>. J
-<
rf '
,.t \-
V.
t '
i.V
.AN
11 i l.i jr V
l>f \
■'" j* •' •'•' \ \ 2 2
- '■-'••" ■i'^X-"
; Yr '/ u,
.■t.W^\\\\
\
\H- .#1
■ / ,n ► .
/
v
.X
•• V
,.,,:, V ,
;ir
N, :■
LIST OF APPENDIXES
1. Thomas Penn and Richard Penn Patent to Nicholas Scull, August 19
1754
2. The Last Will and Testament of Samuel Piffer, March 16, 1812
3. Inventory of Samuel Piffer's Estate, 1812
4. Settlement of Samuel Peiffer's Estate, 1813
5. Inventory of Frederick Pipher's Estate, 1830
6. Inventory of Peter Pipher's Estate, 1871
7. Inventory of Aaron Pipher's Estate, 1871
8. Settlement of Aaron Pipher's Estate, 1875
9. Vendue List, Samuel Pipher's Estate, 1896
10. Inventory of Samuel Pipher's Estate, 1896
11. United States Direct Tax of 1798
12. Northampton County Tax and Assessment Records 1789-1834
13. Number of All Cattle and Milk Cows on Northampton County Farms
1840-1974
14. Number of Farms, Land in Farms and Average Size of Farms in
Northampton County 1850-1975
15. Acres and Yields of Corn, Hay, Wheat, Irish Potatoes, Oats and
Barley in Northampton County 1849-1975
142
16. Northampton County 1844, 1884, 1924
17. Farm Tenancy in Pennsylvania 1939
18. Capital Requirements Needed for 100-Acre Farm, 1855
19. Daybook, Slateford - Pipher citations
20. Daybook, Slateford, pp. 48, 49, 224, 225, 261
21. Description of Williams' Quarry, 1858
22. Description of Slate Quarrying, 1883
23. Standard Sizes for Roofing Slate
24. Old Time Slate Quarries Slateford Farm and Vicinity--James S
Yolton, 1984
143
APPENDIX 1
Thomas Penn and Richard Penn Patent to
Nicholas Scull, August 19, 1754
144
rrwt^tC*.^ i
z/c^Ce-KX^ <rn*> *u)e£zs-<Jast.Zi?. d? aj& ^™6> oo-^^^>/^Ct^e^ c^-^^^^4- i/^^g,
{ZfL£/X<' "» 0&y7s6s£L? Ctz> C&Zs/a^rter (^^^"^^V. tSt&Oj&tr-ste/Ttc? /^f^/^y^ry<^'^
//*/0»*ty> 0/sJU* *S0tJ (/CctS&te /-ZZsrrCJz, Vy <?Ja CO^l-A 'N^rtt^W S'&ri/>*-'-Z~ &>oerT~*?4.»'/!&-y
/;,</<
lC£*S *t-£+J!-*
'-*<<?
m
£g£^
/Zp~ y • ■ ^y^ y? _<~n ^^ . ' ~^
^
<^2.^Uy/
> OSK-Jtosfot-
/ —^^ ri**^n VCJ-^r^+^T <rTi*^tS*.f ^^^-C^y
cfc> &riJ*^ ta^yv-euui,, f_
^c*zJ-/p^S<y2^£**c <yV/i^, <z/t*r^ ^&<^2£-<Jg^o
&&
M&usa,
~~&*£sto ^fe,^,/^^,^ L^r^.A^Al^^tu *^W^
&*** iStLejt^, ^y^ fa/e^L*', 200-X& /4£~i-*^, a&x4~£/£^ £%*&<%> /*d*~**JZ*s
oJ(=>/l£>ytx£? l_^£,e&tjc~*. rfrvMorf&m a&> <yZ-f> « c^**^? &n-S ' </%yu™o ,A^/,
^(L> Vf/a£& 0-&&1- t//?isrL^s a/e^ve^eJ a^~/&j ^^^^y%-^^>»-^ e^ny^-
c^/W«W<yr(j»W^u^ or t*/t*>i &**y &%IA^ dkMA**ff£7& /l&t/fg, &SZ&
^y^K>. 0^0%, Ay/cusi^f £L**J t^^tcceyZ/*-*-^ &**
t~n~Stf&£>&+~<-t^, /X^/
tS&+n£^
fflcl*>0rh&' 'ijerf&xm** Cu?.\fA0&> prr*?'*' <^£**^->£
■/u,i £S/7?/ f-£f~&n fvinA t
£p%y
^^^p
-ZW*
yia&f-e^ & ccom^f
tC*^c?&*i
, 42s^
APPENDIX 2
The Last Will and Testament of Samuel Piffer
March 16, 1812
148
y - 6 /
* V *J . ■ *.*'■ Or ■
<«/:
n&w
-■•fV^i.
■ ..■■ j ,xV- ■vW.'iv. :;',/-,>.„
'_,,/, ■inSir ^iiVi'lh'^"" '"-*'*■
-Cin^a.
» ^>«-^
9£<£«_^£^L
C^-o*i^z? .
i§^
^^^^tsS^^^^-^^g^^^^^^^^i^
-i*1"
l^^^^^^i^
7
:*£*
I
^^^v
-tC^.
M^^ ^f~^~~
\
m ■«■!!>■ f 1,
aiu
«•
^/!p4Jc£^c£^c*>c^*fzrZc££j
\^fc£^n*+*-iL£-^ \ /
L uli
A...
t^^s^Aw* /^r^j*^ **m^***>~~~* ***^m
,w x~ t&fi~J£~ */-"*& *^ ■ wuf. *?%».,* *///*£/>„ rf> m
IB
2&5
APPENDIX 3
nventory of Samuel Piffer's Estate, 1812
152
,'tf-r\J<
:-\ k
x.:^
■ 9S
JC* i-**&0
\"«
31
*••> v.
■?.
■ 1. ' £/"•* trrxjt.
■'••H-'V.'*-^'
(>
' 3S~
•as
* at"'
. V ^
'f&Zl
IK
r**u
»jr- v- j^
\9l
mm,*
0 MK " '
. ^ -it*. ^^ .^v* «. .„.^w s^5.^ ^./^c ^£v. . > ■ >• i%
■ n -tnWi
H ^~*~~ az^fr.j, M^#j-v ■;>crr: /v'^*^**** •■%*«*
■ i. - j
V
JU
n**u
-;
APPENDIX 4
Settlement of Samuel Peiffer's Estate, 1813
155
V
4 "
0
Hi
lit
I
!';••-¥
•!:•
(1^ s
°0 t
S
^
^T
w^
jst
l£^ l<B
^
c\ws «$ ^«v^ x' ** *i \^^^ j ^^ ^'ag
■•i 4
i5
s£
^
— o -
•*>
3 z
-;;t..;^-.-I'-
$ ^ j
v ^ i
4 <^
|~ ^^Cy^N^^^g^^^^v^
^ $ • f
M^ ■ ■
H ■ « '
« * f
i '
* i
■.--,V- :t-r.- ~'t--y
^-•fc«. -
S»
*\
z\
1
&
*S^sT5
» 3
1
1
$
, -<N $
3 'S
v I • I
CM*
.3 4S ^ * ^
■*5 ^ «<^ ^ ^> ^3
4^
..At
*3
11
9V5
$
;m^
^f^J
«^s
*^
^
i V*
8
^9 m Li
v)
sro: H XT1
£ ^ ^ -n ,y j JS y
whm
H
V
<3
0
«1
ha
3§1^ Id-*
If ikuK
^ ,■ ' « 1 r J<? 3j
c^
sN$
APPENDIX 5
nventory of Frederick Pipher's Estate, 1830
159
v£
'WSJ Or//*
ts^^^//?/?
/r<? ftiS /><?/> #,/0 /fi/y /twsy
1/
'■? /
e-vc'- -
*>"/£r &^/ Z,,^ ^„^
&-14~c/ &&,•</
/ A ejfaerl ' _
tVfcfv . //t^^ ,^h«^- ^^^r w£^ jyCZs !
"JT
/,
ff\
2-f
/S~G
"ft
/ ■&tf//^' fp*ie^- CL//U*
/
\
(S'J
•MJf'fi- —
• *
s'lf >•/
'/t&ruft-
lW*4f- ^' L^ -^
'//■'/ /&* ^"^ ^ JvW>
/u^y —
#-*
/S/vVy. '_ _ J
t?
/
/
/•/
/
k /
/
/
7"
r «* .J
f
^ ^
^^ ^/ a*uA^ - .— * __ _._ _
A0CV <~>^ **~*~* "' "Vlf^- -
ti.
l1:.^ -Jy/frJ
I'' * A
7^"/ cf/urv*-*'j> L^-c^^/ _
, I'M Oty*+f ,t*ue/^ _ — — - _
j -<^ ^W^^ - - - '" - " - -
Tt9
6£-*y
<r>^
•X? ^n/i^ 'fw-5 oui^aj^o <*?£ -Jl/ z-s ffi$ ^/,/^,^</u^s~^i '0 y
.Cu.
ti^
\ :^r
f'^zjK* -4^^^^^w^
o
:%'*'ty &-&*-£ Jrle&t- - t/^st-r**".
I ^ -£11/ *.**+*< £~~y ^i^C^r a/ ~j //„ ^^ 7 ^<y^ -£*J~
'^--C//t^y C^tU Ov-«-
'U
v^l^ £^"
APPENDIX 6
Inventory of Peter Pipher's Estate, 1871
163
cSIai'tlfitmpfotf <£onntij, $.
^Personally came before me, //^ Aj yf yf.r/c, / one of the
•UCJL- in and for said County, the following named persons, viz. :
who, upon their solemn f„ /9c~ did say : That they would well and truly, and
without prejudice or partiality, value and appraise the goods, chattels and credits ,
which were of :/?/fo f/pulw deceased, and in all
respects perform their duties as appraisers to the best of their skill and judgment.
lJ\»i\\\<-0
'. ■, \ (V v - \
',, A,/t
/ I
\ /j SA ■_*./ y ••'•/ ■ -•■ '
// i < /'
■i>
1
/\/.,yl /■■>:... / /" w,/,
/ // -,/i
/' / /.//u // ie--' ■ f
/ if,,,', £ />., '<■ i'-i-
/ : /■// " < v-.
/j ./?,,./ /•;
....■/•
i "M
1 y H
i
i / Ivi
i //
re
J
<*■•■- 1
s / .' ',•< ." *v//
/. ,/,
/J --..
1 /, „ #w/ /
-
I
. J . ^ -
i /
/ j /,- a I *>/.'•<■
/.:..
-
, /L;V... y /
i^C'l
1 / // ^
<//. ' ^y
"•» !
M
£ M
M
\ .
i
vi"
/ V/
t
;/,'
\*
/< ./.■:
CI i
I I
i.'C, A
ij.. .i
(» ! ,- :
r1- ' ■ ' . • j
DM
APPENDIX 7
Inventory of Aaron Pipher's Estate, 1871
166
ijoTthamjiton ©Dainty, $$
w-^V*
PERSONALLY «,,„«./,,/■«,-, ,,,,, ^
o/^ o/' Me
Jl.u.Z£<- c*/ cy^dt^ vcfo.^*-> iu and fur said County, the following named persons, viz. :
icho, upon their solemn <f<rt ft^ dfij.Ksaij: That tliey would wetland truly, and
irithout prejudice ur purtialit y , value and appraise the goods, chattels and credits,
which were of c^y$ OUZ <^i <_3 (/C/tf/i &Jj—'^ deceased , and iu all
respects perforin their duties as appraisers to the best of their skill and judgment.
TWB/fTQMT and rlFFItzlIgEMENT of the
1V-1** credits, which were of c-Af C
f.ttisjai /CcTLi-^^4-{XA-/\-) ' u.t the time of fit...
uds and chattels, rights and
at the time of ti^j death, taken and mude in conformity
i •, of the above deposition .
-7 7</£-lU
I ^A^^ua 9/fc^iif7^
i£+ue *****
l
KZ
YW-?
I rt>'i<i
*f <&*cx.c^<uu ^zr/fj/^ *^<^^a^*? ^ ^^cy
a/Lo <Xct*fc<^yf~v-ti- C/&C&r<//. Oe^fa/ux^f <f^»u<^
C^ea
i-l/iX*^/- .
3 7C..W'/
/fS&ty*
-- - t
CA-*.**.
tt^txA^.^'^ or a«y ^ict« £f*XJ*/t*-*fft -*£«««««««. UyfUr-jA
et>
3
/c/
l7
\ /
S/ .(To
Bo-^ro
2.
?
/era
//a ,&*>
3o Cru
CrO
£*&.(.
fa
-Aj^i-^^a^^'.y, &/& , </OrpU^ &£~tfU*-* . I1 /<7
/ikrsra
<r/r
X
.CU^uC
tzZt, rti***£~c~'-L~-&-tfri^ s**o u^-*4**^<^(u_t_rZZZ-4*^. iter- aC*.
APPENDIX 9
Vendue List, Samuel Pipher's Estate, 1896
172
ZZ&* *l&^is^6~e^-£-
■cms*
ii
\s-C4 /U^c-a^-i^
/ "
/
/
V
W
CLzr-r-fl-o
<£%*^JL
;M.
i --v /7/.-^^fc
z<z^S
^€£^/'
I J // "
II
/
II 4
O
/^
/$ —uU^ouJC
\
1 £/ _•
Y. /Z<*^?~Ce^
tf
ft
Sv^Zr<_^\
>
\ ■
/
/\/J-
'O
a 2-
o J~
•To
J 1—
Jo
■3-0
3o
Jo
JJ
ibo
Vo
Zo
Jo
</J-
0 I
1 1 I 111 ■ l—l I III
tt
CsyiriAr-^C-€ts-<~,
30
f
</'>tZn, C^e^c^U
'14-ZOst-l
'(
t/
<9-z^
a.
/ty&^isz^/ j&A^isut</(_
J^L< 7fc
'^>£*£C>47
^iV
^
cJCtHsiZ^jL^
T^O
II
//Sr*c&^(. 9*
/r
•
6(0
;• '"'
r
/o
6 2.
:.. . ,;*
.. . .— KT ■■
Oy.
L-
'
/2-\.
(sO
/
SO
Z I.
/
60
2.
.
/ t
V 1 c
v
j2^&W^ 9+tlM^s-y-
1
|
Zra
Q^-@*&U4S-£a*^s
&Uj5£<^,
>
&
-Xp^u^ -^dfet^jjU.
fd^t^e* ,
/[
?J~
Qi^ rtv^rfr-.
p^co/Z^.
V-c
y~£^(L^ G^y^Y, /IsirfC^*
V
V
?J-
(J~ & &pl^dslC4*>
<^^L^tA^CC^r-^^
V
Jsf J§TZs£t^U4^4^
t^TT>-4^J C^c^~ -^4^*S ,
c
i
nr
0^ $Ut&~
/TT-<ZcSz/Ls>-^*Z'&
'J~
r, 0 rVyuMJ^
\vr
/
ro
/
/o ;
i
yf C4. (zyt^-CtZ^Z^*.* <<J<£i^tS-*,
/
^i/-
^Wr^^<- ^C^O +<L,
<a>
J^tXlyit^ A> ^^Z^H^t^U^ \ CT£^,^/
JT
(te*^^.
/
yur
1/
J
00
i
/\2-J~
v
40
\
\G<+
•, Cft*-t*<2^t-«^--«-^ C^/-j>-"^~ <
\9^U\uCi-^<^*-^°
If
OCAscA- ^ZA^LiASUU^
U
i 11 ' '
y<?
J. <b*( 9tf£uU<u<-*~-
V
/ 2-
\ > /Zw^A
£/i.*4»
•i 1
1
s _
1/
<-\ */
^u^t^co d^rt^uz/fC^
/{ M^\sUsts{+lJ!-y
» .
Ji ft Zf^CK, //'/*
/ o ,,
So »
/o
^ o „
/0 t, «
J n >,
/ 0 r* .,
/O
tv-
/J
/3
/ 3
/ <A
/o
tfrf,
t/
f?.
>i
/
/
/
1
3r
6 o
/
/
/
/
/\J o
Jo i
6,0
Jo
6J-
**\
</-o
Si
Z?
/
z.r
/ 6
as
Jo
a-o
//
I, o
id fa
It
I I
£6 &
y f n h
I)
» J-
(h*^ ,
0-tsi ,
Chy
J
/^
j /
f
/S\zf--
(ft M-^tLvU^
<fef G? CCj&Z^ouzs
It
}1r(P (R^IU*
(I .1 *,-■
Z>-^L
>-^/2r^^
600 ,, U
„ //£S * t
,, /O SO " 0
/
/
/
f »
/ i —
/ 1 1 "
I "
/ ..
/ o
}/lrfiuJ 'U-tUtnsnA/ ,
;o?
flctfS
U^C^LyX,
-A<rt- a <=^C-i^_
f*
$^o ~4~,
J.
4 C<Ul^
/<£//«■■'
r*
<a t ^
4°
/3asi^t4,
'/
'I
/Licet
ft ^f^t^u—^-K
2- ir
*,
6
3
/
±
2.
/ 2-
/
7&
a </. j
o i
<To
JS _y
z r i
j-o .
0 o
/o
, ^
-.-♦ ■
Go j
*7j
J o
<^ i
i
/ o
CO ;
■2.J-
(
i
\7J~
B^=
<a
rf /^><^^t^ccy C/st^&j^ o^aca^u^, Mj^/^yC CZ^iyi+J? JZ
JruK^L^ Jf ^/y4^ M/ j&%a£
a>
^h ym^&>^ <<^
^ /tie. &^£S&^ J<le£s<L
am^v^t^tcy}
y
^
stst/V
£^*>T^t^Ld-^V
v r
*.*
*
'*■'—» mw in ■ *^v**»
r. . *r.»-t.™m^.<« m> 'vmrwm^+l
APPENDIX 10
nventory of Samuel Pipher's Estate, 1896
183
Northampton County, ss.
in and for said County, the following
PERSONALLY c»me before me }r~jf cA^**^^
wlio, upon their solemn ^w-^C tlid say: That
named persons!, viz
£
they would well and truly, and without prejudice and partiality, value and appraise
the goods, chattels and credits, which were of & '^*****^v-
deceased, and in all respects perform their duties as appraisers to |
the best of their skill and judgment. '
Tz^fZ?"^-^ and subscribed -\
this /7*dayof (m^-
18'J «? , before me,
tXtz/t^&dt&is
INVENTORY AND APPRAISEMENT of the goods and chattels, rights and
credits, which were of jgj \^ul^^-^A Lv><>/^^L^V late of
r^hi^te^ATIA^-^U rf&fzfa-* 77d^/^Ju^ at the time of
death, taken and made in conformity of the above deposition.
AM Or**** d/LA
£Z/-u/~i^i-- <■
'fa^/C CX&^>^£C^-S
r Northampton County, ss.
PERSONALLY came before me yh^-J tJrtteslA oOL one
of the lfi<UL<Z^Lt^ J~f TyLC (-Jig^c^Us in and for said County, the following
named persons, viz : O^^i-^zJ^ ^3 <Z^ In^&T^- ^<*{ (to* ihr>isUC4^t>-^
who, upon their solemn o-#J£ did say: That
they would well and truly, and without prejudice and partiality, value and appraise the
goods, chattels and credits, which, were of .^DO^t^i^clyC (—/^^z^^
deceased, and in all respects perform their duties as appraisers to
the best of their skill and judgment. ^Zt>^^^i^^ y&<^i^£&cxs
SlA-r-zrr^1 iUul subscribed \ fJW^ jfah^t^O-iiri^
this / f day of >^a^ye^
1896 , before me.
INVENTORY AND APPRAISEMENT of the goods and chattels, rights and
credits, which were of ,^J (<ia^Z^<J^- C^^^^^ Iate o{
death, tnken and made in conformity of the above deposition.
I
i
A/.
V O\0O
/ v-\aa
l? 60
3 7/\oo
i
/ o 7 So
/fl
Jdf
00
/(,
C2P-
3 /
(3> g
jj 7S -rftn) '^f^itrtou&si^
il
ij
/ ^£^ (V^*A
Q. J.'
y
- 2r-
\ As Y 0<6( Jlc^J^
& &>/<*
u
\/eo ^U<.a<_ C?<*a? /3,r4it gzvU 7A4t.a(. CS *-c *
I
I S<> t,
/So /?#^£, jg j-#
I /- A/C*-r-*-«- Jn*.tj^ P^y-a-^o^r
<
|
So ,
\
So'
i
\ro
i
Coo
V OQ
&Soo ,
] 1
' So o o a
i
/ ,'yo
/ \oo
\rr |
1
l
V o o o
/ o [po
Z CO
2,0 0
Zf (30
K
I
[
JOOo
-<&-—Z.<Sj&>
3
10 O
1
/
|
OO
US
\<JO
1
/
S~o j
j
£S\
t r
[ 1
' L 1
^^^"
,, ,, /'a^^e^
/ (lew V &*M'
/ &U. fto-fut-
/ M
vfL
Z/\oo
4,&
2-y-
00
00 11
00
vo
a o 1
/S
/ .
M
/
Co
00
00
00
i
to
s
/
/o
/
00
00
DO
CO
00
2,0
sro
O/J
00
00
/s-
%s
(JO
00
2s
0&m
/ **
,"v
'(Zcls/Cl.
/ fir M^J^sUCu, V-7C2<^^Zr
a-<°sic +- £r-v-oJ^a AZc
e.
c^/C-&
O A^tru-eJss
2s ra-aJ- 6Cocf-£si~s^ J o^
/ ri<C<s—isis
/ Q-<-cZZZ<^.6 S3 try.
/ /^as-)sx^/ sda^j.
2-> fsC~Cf—tS\S-$s
sd&stsi^c^*^. Qrt^-t&st **■ sdZZ+j^csr
C^V-V-Csry ,jjU-*t
J-v4- c>/ 7'T<UsrlsuT_&4^1_,
. Jestsy-^, + 'ffcZst/i^y
3. 1
(a 0 O
' I
J loo
o o
7J~
o o
6~0
ro
2, o l
Zst
/
/
o
O'
o o
o o
J~o
o
OO
/ \o o
00
/
2
/
/
2
/
ov
<To
O o
O/J !
!<3
>0
00
z.S~
/ 2<r
J~o
So
1 o
lo
oo
r " ro I
).o.
I ■
.-. J
f— ■■--- ■— — ■
. !
0 - — - • • ! *H
; i
4-0
/ 2,-PO
g in -
/Z)
z4\
i- - ' -- - ~/
Jy? /'V-o
APPENDIX 11
United States Direct Tax of 1798
190
^
>?
l-
c ■-
<u
O "O
-Q
oi
o
O) <"
^
c u
o
O
■*-» 01
a
>»-
01 t->
o
u o
x c
>-
0)
CO
a
01 "D
■— 01
^j
C +j
O)
ra o
1_
> 2!
>- 01
x^
i/l
01
c oi
c Is
C Q-
ai: o>
2 £
>• w "SI
'D
u
■»-*
OJ
OJ
a
in
u
3
U
1/1
!c
u
o
0)
2
1_
o
r
c
o
■*
o
^
CO
>
t/i
*-l
c
:S
o
c
3
o
5
^J
H
c
ai
OJ
a
♦_.
E
a
ra
.C
01
3
>
L
0)
L.
1/1
c
ID
01
a.
<
S o
3
a
3
E
o
u
E
it)
m
01
t/1
->
1/1
^
^
«.
L.
t_
I_
11
01
01
V-
x—
4-
01
01
01
Q.
Q.
CL
, !
>
O
_J
01
c
01
■a
c
c
'—
ro
■a
0)
^~
X)
O
3
■^
"O
C
c
ra
ra
3
a
o
3
V-
CL
'oi
01
•*-
Ol
1_
a.
L.
**—
o
01
01
01 3
01
ra o
01 1_
E E
E
N- Q
01 01
ra ra
ra
O ^,
E c
i/l i/l
in
T3
ra 5
01 01
Z 0
01 L
oi "O
3 C
0 3
1 X
Oo
> a
ai
"O
ai
c
C
c
■
ra
t5
01
oi
01
2
01
01
Q
01
u
3
X
O
01
I
*«-
01
3
xi E
3 '
^
o
01
Q
L.
o
Ol
Ol
01
01
TD
01
c
<
3
I
a
01
c
u
O
c
L_
Ol
Q_
c
Jj <"
X)
0)
.,_»
"O
O
01
c
c
E
<J
t_
o3
Q >
~D ai
01
ra 0
oi X
o en
•J3 c
ra >
> Q
o m en
(X) CO O"!
in i—
o
a
c
a
c
■.
o
ra
T3
01
z
^
01
L
C
I4_
o
01
6
o
>
OJ
L.
1)
o
Q
^
+-1
-C
01
c
TD
01
3
01
>
o
■*-*
l_
i_
u
c
TD
ra
io
C
_c
01
C
01
3
X
T3
c
3
01
C
a
c
ra
a_
O
01
ra
0)
.c
O)
01
o
c
01
01
CD
Ol
01
"a
3
3
~
+-j
O
ra
>
3
c
3
I
O
0)
S
3
O
01
1_
o
01
01
01
i
ar
>
a
o
Ol
3
n
n
T3
4-1
OJ
C
•Xi
if-
o
S
01
L.
1
a
ro
0
01
01
ra
0)
.,_,
c
O]
ul
u->
S
01
1
o
Ol
(J
a u
. 00 -c
— CTl <->
o r~- 3
> <- oi
191
ID
° c
a to «
o.h°-
o E
~ „ 0) — i
03
•*-»
§a£-
5
O «-.
i_
u a.E'S
4)
1 what
ownshi
r City
istrict
-Hod
"O
o
v
i/i
c
Ul
0)
'i
1/1
L.
in
dJ
<
w
0)
"a
IS
c
a
o
7j
01
in
(0
x:
L
3
*-•
A3
10
>
O
>
n
a
ai a;
+_* *^ ■*-<
10
? §£
. OJ -C
o
01
a
3 C
I- U
01 U ,-
5 ° §
c oi x:
QJ in *J
w in l
C- QJ O
3 in 2
Q. in
a ° t-
in ~ >*
a) ~a *±
10 0) L
3 C 3
o > o
01
OJ
01
Ol
in
Ol
XT
01
w
Ol
c
O
in
X)
$ 3
"iff
01
«-i
c
(0
a>
3
—I
■c Ki
a
0)
o
in
^ 0)
x:
"O u
Ol t.
c-
u
0)
3 «
o
Ol
— □.
Ol
E
10
1/1
10
m
OI
£
15"
3
m
c
(0
> M
00
03
3
o u
CT>
Z
u
C
o
a
-I <
*"
°S
(O
o
in
01
3
<0
X
<0
in
3
>
H
o
Ol
^
I
r
10
01
m
3
O
X
u
01
l_
5
in
c
o
m
in
Oi
c
Ol
in
IJ)
c
"ai
c
"a
3
o
in
Oi
rO
in
in
O
a
in
*->
C
10
a
E
10
CO
a
o
01
"O
3
u
c
o
3
C
l_
■~
en
"O
01
in
u
o
D
01
'5
Ol
XI
E
■a
c
10
c
0)
in
Ol
in
3
c
m
L
3
o
5
O
D
Z
O
a
Z
a
X
o
00
in p
" E
in o
su
'x; oi
io x:
(0 >.
> XI
*;
"£
5
x:
io t_, m
c § 2
u
!c
O -r
i
0) u
in
1- L. _,
01
u » s
1/)
< a?
3
O
I
two
f Up
undi
a
™ ° x
c
en
c a oi
Q
10
T> !E q
Ol in W
exce
town
m of
O JK CO
O
01
in
'C-C
-a - +->
01
0) »
>
c
00
01
oi ai
c
O
10 r-
O)
rg
CO
Ol -
is
c
§ -c o *
> «-• O at
192
■a
c
3
sz —.
O
>
— ' r~
XI
en
01
o ^
C
CD
o
01
j: J
01
in ra
c
' '
i/l
CD
o
X
£
CO
CD r-
Q
ID
<u
01
«->
t
3
o
I
01
1-
>
<D
3
en
r
-l
c
*■•
^_
' —
01
O
CD
ra
^
2
i
u
5
_ ^
3
o
CD
o>
01
0)
01
r
c
3
>
0J
O
n
V
Q
3
0
O
-C CD
c
c
o
aj
i_
3
_c
3
a
ill
■—
a
> 5 ra <
k.
s
0)
n
i_
c
0)
ro
r
_l
•^
^_
x>
O
OJ
3
>
*->
it)
'Zj
>
c
ro
01
3
o
a
_l
01
-C o
U 00
<H 3
3 o
O I
03
=1
o
x -o >
CD
<_ £ ^
«J T3 o .E £
J3 "> 0) = oi
3 D 5 O
Z o<3 oi Q X
-C >
„ o
l/l
__,
OI
«yi
OJ
c
a
13
3
o
C
3
CJ
£
l/l
D
o
in
o
_c
-C
D)
+j
C
l_
ra
~
c
0)
a>
t_
Q
3
a.
_c
a
KJ
3
u
01
iT]
o
01
3
X)
01
ffl
c
01
>
ra
<
x: u.
fD 4-
O Q)
xf|.E
u u
c °
ra
£5
a
3 ^ i_,
ag c o,
a w 0) i-
ro aj £ _ra
01 oi —
01 01 oi O
<D O a) Q
<" a. oi
2 ^ "O
O -< <d
x tj i_
<D °*- X
£ HI 01
C X
CD
CD 53 C
3 aT£o
£«5E
u U ^
ami
."dp
;£„
o «i3 ra
x ? <u >
?< v.E
= 5 3 en
CD 5 o C
^ "O
u x> Q. x
CO CD a cd
CD CD 3
U X)
0 CD O £
c *-. a
o o .- ~
a !2 c
- U C ro
S- CD O >
Q en"
Ol O
CD CD
01
01
4) C
-C C
CD *-" 01
CD .h
14-
CD ~ O
ra "^ ™
3 tD I/)
■ — 4-» u CD
2^s c
x: u ,b
,_ # O
C£> _ it- o
O 01
- ^ sr'>
0 0 m .-
> _i Q Q
193
APPENDIX 12
Northampton County Tax and Assessment Records 1789-1834
194
X)
0)
c
l_
o
a.
Sam .
Samu
Jacot
ffer
ffer
ffer
"D
c
CD CD CD
a. a a
CD CD
C ^
O CO
r- 1 00
I CO I
X)
oo
(_
O
O 00 o
ra
en o
00 • r-
_J
oo o r-
• ^r
a
a
D
CO
01
CD
CD
3
3
3
£
E
E
ra
ra
ra
cO
CO
CO
i_
c
s_
c
<D
CD
CD
■*—
i/i
0)
CD
CD
a
a
a
E
c
3
c
- )
—i
— .
CD CD
CD <D
3 3
3 3
E E
E E
ra ra
ctj ra
CO CO
CO LO
i_ i_
c c.
CD CD
<D <D
t t
-C t
CL-r,
CD CD
._ CD
O. 0-
a Q-
m
CD
CD
CD
~>
3
J
h
F
F
h
D
m
ra
ra
ra
CO
CO
CO
I/)
E u
10 -i
°3
TJ
c
r
-J
ra
T)
CD
3
£
E
■*-'
CO o tO
CD
0
CD
CD
T)
3
n
c—
c
o
o
**-
'-*-
J*-
h
ID
CD
CD
CD
CU
ra
LL
0.
a.
a-
CO
-j
CO -i
~CD CD
3 3
E E
ra ra
CO CO
CD CD n
P F °
E b u
0)
D
3^
7- O
£
E u
ra ra ra
ra
ra en
CO CO ~>
CO
CO -i
1_ c. c
CD
3
E
s_
l_ L.
CD CD CD
CD
<D CD
ttv
4—
4— <+-
CD CD CD
a o- a
ra
a
a. a.
CO
195
111 1
c —
CD (U
F P
Sfs
3 «
■ o ™ ■
m *s > i
C\J <\J t— u
go
1 —IT
<u
0)
E
em
L.
<U
ra .
LL
U_ U3
i- o —
3
r
>i
F
tl
™
— CO
10
IS
OJ
E
i
> <\j
0J
ID
*-
>*-
£
E S
c E- 3j
id > n 3
<U 0) t
fD
r
r
f
F
OJ
I/)
0)
o
0]
iq
Tl
-j
l/l
10
l_
0J
01
0)
L
t_
l_
b
It
OJ
OJ
OJ
«■/)
*-
4-
■*-
Ul
Q.
a
a.
LL
Ex
3
E
E 5
aj a, <u m
196
0)0)0)
E E E
E E fE
c
>
>.
m
c
c
J*
jt
J£
^
^L
.*
.*
_*
u
u
u
U
u
.*
u
u
u
L.
L.
L.
t_
L,
u
L.
L
L.
-S »-
L
l
0)
l
!_
Q)
l
l.
0)
l
i_
0)
L.
0)
S-
0)
1- iJ
01 i_
O) j_
L,
T3 oj
0)
0)
"a
<u
0)
TD
a)
0)
"O
0)
0)
"D
0)
0)
"D
0) o
"D 0)
"O 0)
01
0) —
aj
0)
0)
OJ
L.
■*->
0)
+-> u
0) a)
a ->
01 <Z
0) -t-»
1- 0)
0)
0)
L.
0)
OJ
l_
0)
0)
L.
0)
01
L-
01
0)
"O
0)
i_
L. 0)
t- <u
0)
u. a
a.
0-
LL
CL
Q.
LL
a
a
LL.
a
a
LL
a.
0)
0)
L.
CL
LL
u- a.
LL CL
Q.
1_ L
t_
!_
l_
l_
L.
L.
t_
i_
L.
i_
L.
L.
L
Dl
a.
LL
L
!_
L L.
L L
L. L
L
0) 0)
<u
0)
0)
0)
0)
01
0)
0)
CD
0)
0)
0)
0)
c
0)
0)
ai o)
0) 0)
0) 0)
01
t t
u
O
t
j:
JZ
u
o
t
£:
u
o
IJ;
t
-C
o
o
jj;
V-
jz
u
o
l/l
L.
0)
0)
jz
o
o
jz
jz jz
jz jz
jz jz
JZ
0) i
oS
u
ai
i
0)
'5
0)
0)
a)
4—
Q.
a a
a. a
a a
a
a a
^
a.
a.
^
Q.
IX
*:
CL
a
*:
Q.
LL
X.
1
a
CL
^
a
a. a.
b- a.
a. Q-
CL
00
•a-
lT)
CD
r-
00
en
CO
r~-
CO
OJ
00
00
oo
OO
co
CO
CO
00
OJ
CO
00
CO
r
w
0)
t_
"a
01
ro
OJ
Q-2
X
c
ru
4-1
T}
>
OJ
L.
c
o
o
i/l
0)
>
QJ
l_
a
IS
i/i
OJ
o
CO
^r
CO
■
m
o
oo
oo
T
00
00
197
NOTE: Both hardbound books containing tax information and microfilm
were examined at the Northampton County Government Center in Easton.
The microfilm was very difficult to read and therefore, some of the above
numbers and spelling of names may be incorrect. When some of the
hardbound tax books were examined, it was discovered that their contents
did not always match that on the microfilm. The director of court
services was at a loss to explain this. The tax records from the 1830s to
1840s provided only the tax paid; the books for these years were stored
in a vault at the courthouse and were inaccessible. The tax books for
the 1840s through 1880s were stored in Nazareth, Pennsylvania and were
also inaccessible.
198
APPENDIX 13
Number of All Cattle and Milk Cows on
Northampton County Farms 1840-1975
199
Year
1840
1850
1800
1870
1880
1890
l(H)0
I'HO
i(>:o
I1) .10
1(M0
1950
l')S')
1964
I (X,*>
1 1)74
MJMIU KOI ALL. (ATI Lb AND MILK COWS
ON NORTHAMPTON COUNTY FARMS
CaOle on Farms
19.47]
3.400
16.655
14.901
19.236
18.400
20.923
L>.442
18.03.1
14.405
15.981
l<).341
20.927
ll>/>24
10.401
19. (.00
Milk Cows
2.021
10.721
10.841
13.090
14.296
14.296
13.815
12.577
10.052
I 1 .63 1
I 1 .68 I
12.028
11.876
8 .98 8
10.600
10.600
Lewis, "Agriculture," p. 238
200
APPENDIX 14
Number of Farms, Land in Farms and Average Size of
Farms in Northampton County 1850-1975
201
NUMBER OE FARMS. LAND IN FARMS AND AVERAGE SIZE OH HARMS
IN NORTHAMPTON (OUNI Y. 1850 l')75*
Year
1850
I8S0
1910
1920
ll> 30
1940
1950
195C)
1904
1969
1974
Land in laims
Nunibei ol hu ms
(in acres)
2120
37,|K2
4002
218
244
3 5 0 5
192
(>51
32X3
178
124
2707
l()2
560
2597
156
959
2184
162
323
1414
145
48 7
1078
131
255
805
107
454
780
107
172
Source: United Stales Census ol Agriculture.
Lewis, "Agriculture," p. 249
Size ot (arms
(in acies)
177
54
54
54
60
60
74
102.9
121.8
133.4
137
202
APPENDIX 15
Acres and Yields of Corn, Hay, Wheat, Irish Potatoes,
Oats and Barley in Northampton County 1849-1975
203
ACRES AND YIELDS OF CORN, HAY, WHEAT, IRISH POTATOES. OATS
AND BARLEY IN NORTHAMPTON COUNTY. 1 S4lJ 1 975
Corn
1I.IV
Who
ill
Pom
lues
O.i
Is
li.ii
ley
Year
Acres
Yield
Acres
Yield
Acres
Yield
Acres
Yield
Acres
Yield
Acies
Yield
1879
28.051
30.5
34.615
1.14
20.816
10.9
3780
20.731
30.X
1909
25.148
35.2
32.765
1.29
26.441
19.3
5264
91
2 1 .003
26.2
36
16.7
1939
20.815
42.1
34.456
1.41
17.200
21.2
5732
152
I4.Nl>4
29.8
2671
33.4
1949
21.372
47.3
38.173
2.08
12.441'
24.1
4X12
289
13,009
28.9
548 7
38.7
1959
28.409
58.1
32.705
2.51
10.047
30.7
2452
213
12.333
42.4
34lH
31.6
1964
22.886
61.4
30.893
2.66
9.409
34.6
1485
1 33
8.695
40.0
3372
47.5
1969
23,688
80
21.990
3.04
6.120
42. l>
869
245
6.500
52.0
5460
57.0
Lewis, "Agriculture," p. 251
204
APPENDIX 16
Northampton County 1844, 1884, 1924
205
JTORTKAKPTOJT COUWTT t^ q q }'/%LJ ) ^ ? Lj
Number of farms
Improved land In farms acres
Crop production
Corn bus.
Wheat bus.
Oats bus.
Rye bus.
Huokwheat - — - bus.
Potatoes bus.
Hay tons
Trees of bearing age
AppJe
Peitch
Livestock numbers
Horses
Mules
Milk cows
'>ther cattle
otaeep . .
Swine ._
Hpns and Pullets of laying age
Vni 8 Produoed - — - - dozs.
!*"* produced gals.
"utter made on farms lbs.
«oney produced - lbs.
8.700
5.146
80.100
183,600
136.100
206,700
822,400
1,035.600
197.400
368,400
540,800
145.800
606,700
683,100
298,400
214,100
150.000
41.700
17.900
21.900
125.600
336,900
875,600
22.600
41.200
40,900
86.400
61,700
29.600
6,700
33,400
4,800
9.700
5
145
116
2.000
18,700
11.900
1.400
5.100
2,600
10.400
8.000
1.900
20,600
21,000
13.600
146,100
282,700
987,000
1,977.100
6,980,700
6,836,100
205,100
1,329,600
113,800
9,600
14.000
Johnson, "Agriculture in Pennsylvania," p. 87
206
APPENDIX 17
Farm Tenancy in Pennsylvania 1939
207
Fig. 1. — Each dot represents 10 farm tenants. Rented farms were most numerous in southeastern and
southwestern Pennsylvania.
Wrigley, "Farm Tenancy," p. 3
208
APPENDIX 18
Capital Requirements Needed for 100-Acre Farm, 1855
209
Livestock: This will vary much with the character a. id quality of the
land, its connection with the market, etc., but the following is a fair
average for fertile land.
3 horses at $100 $300
i yoke of oxen
IOO
8 milch cows at $25 2°°
10 steers, heifers, calves 100
20 pigs at $5 I0°
100 sheep at $2 2°°
poultry, etc. IO
$1010
Implements: To farm economically, these must be of the best sort,
especially those that are daily used. A plow, for instance, that saves only
one-eighth of a team's strength, will save an hour a day, or more than
twelve days (worth $24) in a hundred, an amount annually, that would be
well worth paying for freely in the best plot. . .
2 plows fitted for work and 1 small $25.00
1 cultivator 7°°
1 harrow 10.00
1 roller 10.00
1 seed planter i5-°°
1 fanning mill, 1 straw cutter 40.00
1 root slicer 28.00
1 farm wagon, 1 ox-cart, one-horse cart,
hayracks 180.00
Harness of three horses 5°-°°
1 horse rake 8.00
1 shovel, 1 spade, 2 manure forks, 3 hay forks,
1 pointed shovel, r grain shovel, 1 pick,
1 hammer, 1 wood saw, 1 turnip hook, 2 ladders,
2 sheep shearers, 2 steelyards (large and small),
1 half bushel measure. Each $1 20.00
2 grain cradles, 2 scythes 12.00
1 wheelbarrow 5.00
1 maul and wedges, 2 axes 6.50
1 hay-knife, 1 ox chain 6.00
1 tape line, for measuring fields and crops 2.00
1 grindstone 3.00
r crowbar 2.00
r sled and fixtures 30.00
Hand hoes, hand rakes, basket, stable lanterns,
curry comb and brush, grain bags, etc. 1500
$4745°
The addition of a subsoil plow, sowing machine, mower and reaper,
thrashing machines, horse power for sawing wood, cutting straw, etc.,
would more than double the amount but young farmers may hire most
of these during the earlier periods of their practice. A set of the simpler
carpenters tools, for repairing implements in rainy weather, would more
than repay their cost.
Besides the preceding, the seeds for the various farm crops would cost
not less than $75; hired labor for one year, to do the work well, would
probably be as much as $350; and food for maintaining all the domestic
animals from the opening of spring until grass, and grain for horses 'til
harvest, would not be less in value than $100; $525 in all.
For domestic animals $1010.00
for implements 47450
for seeds, food, and labor 525.00
Danhof, Change m Agriculture, pp. 96-97
210
APPENDIX 19
Daybook, Slateford - Pipher citations
Courtesy, Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum,
Joseph Downs Manuscript Collection, No. 80 x 100
211
DAYBOOK - SLATEFORD
PIPHER CITATIONS
The daybook begins on July 16, 1858 and ends on June 30, 1859
p. 156 Sept 21, 1858
p. 197
p. 224
p. 242
p. 244
p. 257
19 Aaron Pipher D
To 1 Tobacco
40
" 2 Boxes Matches 2
Nov 25, 1858
213 Warren Wise D
To Meat of
Pipher & Wallick
80
218 George Winters
192
226 Alonzo Labar
126
208 A Bryan
178
217 D Kennedy
110
216 Jas Widemen
37 1/2
230 Pipher & Wallick
CR
By the above a/cs
7.21
Meat for self
10.64
17.85
D
To 1 Nails
Dec 31, 1858
230 Pipher & Wallick
CR
By the above Meat
"Meat to C. Kennedy
23.
10.
85
15
Jany 19, 1859
234 James Dillaine D
to a/c pa Pipher &
231 Jere Garrison "
230 Pipher & Wallick CF
By the above a/cs
11 Beef
Wall
ick
2.65
1.06
3.71
.18
Jany 20/59
151 Peter Pipher D
To Segars
26
Feby I, 1859
3 Samuel Pipher CR
By 4 1/2 Butter
D
To 2 Spool
" 1/2 soda
99
10
6
1/4
16 1
34.00
3.71
3.89
212
p. 261
Feby 5, 1859
3 Samuel Pipher
D
To 2 Dishes 22
66
" 1 Do
31
" 2 Do
32
11 2 Plates
23
" Envelopes
2
1.32
CR
By 2 5/12 Eggs 20 49
151 Peter Pipher D
To 1 paper Tobacco 5
p. 262 Feby 7 , 1859
151 Peter Pipher D
To 1/2 Cheese 7
p. 281 Feby 25, 1859
238 Pipher & Wallick CR
By Beef 3.26
" a/cs of Hands 21.32 24.58
p. 292 March 5, 1859
23 Peter Pipher D
to 1 plug Tobacco 12 1/2
p. 296 March 8, 1859
23 Peter Pipher D
to Essence Spruce 6
p. 300 March 12 /59
23 Peter Pipher D
to Segars 1
p. 304 March 15, 1859
23 Peter Pipher D
to 1 plug Tobacco 4
" 6 sheets paper 6 10
p. 307 March 19 /59
23 Peter Pipher
to 1 plug Tobacco 4
11 1 paper " 5 9
p. 319 March 31, 1859
230 Pipher & Wallick CR
By the above a/cs 5.58
" Meat 4.17 9.75
p. 320 March 31 /59
170 Jacob Wallick CR
By a/c of Pipher & Wallick 6.00
230 Pipher & Wallick D
to a/c Paid Jac Wallick 6.00
213
p. 328 April 9, 1859
23 Peter W. Pipher D
to 2 1/2 Nails 5 13
p. 359 May 18, 1859
23 Peter Pipher C
to 4 Bales Shoethreads* 40
p. 377 June 7, 1859
23 Peter W. Pipher D
p. 385
to 4 1/4 yds flanel
50
2.12 1/2
" 10 " Delane**
25
2.50
" 3 Doz Buttons
12 2
42
11 1/2 " Do
20
10
June 15, 1859
23 Peter W. Pipher D
to 4 yds calico
10
40
5.14 2
p. 388 June 18 /59
23 Peter Pipher D
to 1/2 Doz Buttons 6
The "D" refers to debt, while "CR" refers to credit. The numbers
before the names probably refer to accounts.
*The shoe threads are for sewing together shoes.
**Delane or Delaine, is a fine woolen fabric, first called mousseline de
laine, or muslin of wool, and was developed by the French. It became
popular in England around 1835, and was noted for its cheapness and
durability. The material is commonly found in "Log Cabin" pieced quilts.
214
APPENDIX 20
Daybook, Slateford, pp. 48-49, 224-225, 261
Courtesy, Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum,
Joseph Downs Manuscript Collection, No. 80 x 100
215
48
s
Kf
in
^~S La (i~ & ut
v ■ /
>■ / / A
L/ V «f <-<' /J »-i
y
j
* tlifh^y 1
4
i
tys&Vlp font* '., ,J., //f$
Wl- Shit Crl | ,
^ptf^jbxrrv*-.
t^:*^^/W^
■£esWy >&£<%& / #-£)
JJ^'
ifyM x>AJZ jfy
J,rxr
JJ JJ
/l /f
So;
} 4/
~^^> /MS A
///
// ^
Mba/CUy Jt Jy dr46i6, a ft* //> ff*
iny
tPu ■ v
J hi rt mi\
Or
h
t* ,-t.
///
// \\r
4r
* ■■
/&
/<
216
49
i J(i<fetft<< 4/ituf u :
tj&jftfi*')/
I fa. h<t? /hi) fc> <*
rf^. 1 uJ /hi/' "., w << "
%Jx, /j/mii -v/ t/fr/ >'><.<. " '■
(ft Ja^/- tft' '/ " >•
i^'/H/Ji t^t^i. is -
^ /)i* Jjutif/i^ixh /I
.'■ fry
/f/J
/ ^
/JJ
217
224
l&r'J #. k' hi/ft /»#...- &, >
*\\\ '/<■ >'< {/ft \ U>c - c A
HIT M&*£ Jh/t - A ^ Jo
y
i
8
J JV
/7eT
;// 4/*/
&
rf i;
f/Jf
y/
fc!
.< '/ /,^
218
0 •
225
1VL lt*fil4t hi-ixC^f . rfr>
o£Yi j$//>?i<t/> W/*4*f , "
/fftf-
* <r/4
■i 'i "
l\ n "
Hi*vi a
*/S- ^W «^y///U ..//fay faA *>
&£4l //*.#/
/J 4 J
/) J#
/t4S
/ML
219
.. £ J^ //!
rfX-3-fiuXvn- &ff -f^
261
fl£
t/fc.
5*
fi^
^
J
L<t
!
r
( i / "z • - L /- i U.V • e «».
'r
- *• f/<t.-/. /*,
'/?.
'X X' -X ^ '
/-/
6
V
220
APPENDIX 21
Description of Williams' Quarry, 1858
221
"The quarry at present (i. e. previous to 1858) is in the
form of a beautiful amphitheater or circle of cliffs, about
100 feet in diameter, and at least Co or 70 feet high.
"The strata, fine bluish slate -with ribbons of bedding,
dip about 30° to N. 30° W., with remarkable regularity.
In all the portions below a certain plane, apparently that
of a slip or a fault, the cleavage is very nearly horizontal ;
but immediately above that plane, the cleavage planes of
the first course curve down steeper and steeper towards the
S. E. or S. 45 E. and in all the still higher ones the ten-
dency is to a S. E. dip, but only very gently, except in the
northwestern parts, where it is more obvious
"The texture of this slate, in the absence of anv defining
fossils, suggests that it may belong to the Utica Slate Forma-
tion, and it is quite conceivable that an axis at this distance
from the outcrop of the Levant sandstone of the Kittatinny
mountain may lift the Ma final slates to day, but this needs
•confirmation. The true stratification of the rock is only
detected by the difference in color caused by numerous very
thin layers, from a few lines to an inch or two in thickness,
traversing the rock in bands parallel to each other, and at
various distances not generally exceeding two feet. These
ribbons denote the direction of the dip of the strata, being
seams of somewhat different composition from the rest of
the mass. Between each two of these ribbons the layer of
slate is homogeneous, or of uniform texture and composi-
tion ; but a difference in the quality of the slate on the two
sides of one of these thin layers is quite common.
"When we examine a new surface of the slate, the usual
and permanent color of which is dark bluish-gray, the hue
of these ribbons is nearly black ; but on exposure to the
atmosphere they show after some time signs of spontaneous
decomposition, and display a whitish efflorescence, which
indicates that this part of the slate contains the sulphuret
of iron. These ribbons are, therefore, carefully excluded
from the slate when they undergo the operations of cleav-
ing and trimming in their preparation for the market.
"At one place in the quarry the dip of the strata, as in-
dicated by that of the ribbons, is towards the W. N". and
W. at an angle of about 3o°. In the same part of the
quarry the dip of the cleavage planes, or in other words, of
the slates, is towards the south at an angle of nearly 50c
Here, however, is the same dislocation or fault traversing
the quarry as in the spot first described.
"This fa ?tlt is a slide of one part of the stratum upon the
222
other, and is from six to twelve inches wide, being filled
with white calcareous spar and fragments of slate. The
rock below it has not only a different actual dip from the
portion of the stratum above it, just alluded to, and a dif-
ferent direction also in the cleavage of the slates, but a dif-
ferent quality in these slates themselves ; those beneath be-
ing much superior, to those over the dislocation. From this
lower part of the quarry, nearly all the roofing and writing
slates are derived. The best school slates are got from belts
that lie directly beneath the sparry seam or fault.
" The direction of the cleavage planes in this portion of
the mass is nearly horizontal, while the planes of stratifica-
tion dip towards the N. W., but at a very moderate angle.
"The difference of direction of the cleavage planes above
and below the fault, renders it possible that the dislocation
and slide in the stratum took place after the mass had ac-
quired this remarkable tendencj' to cleave in a direction
oblique to the stratification ; for had the cleavage originated
subsequently to the disruption of the rock, we ought to find
it maintaining the same direction, and observing the same
features on both sides of the fault. These facts concerning
the change in the quality and position of the slates caused
by the dislocation, indicate how numerous and minute the
circumstances are which must be attended to by those who
enter on the business of quarrying this rock."
H. D. Rogers, Geology of Pennsylvania, 1858, as quoted in Lesley,
et al., Geology of Lehigh and Northampton pp. 86-88.
223
APPENDIX 22
Description of Slate Quarrying, 1883
224
The derricks used are the ordinary spar derricks, with a
Ai>oderi mast and wooden boom with wire guv-ropes and
worked with wire ropes. The hoisting is done by horse
power, but mostly by steam. The other kind of derrick
used is called a cable derrick ; it is preferred by most of
tLe quarrymen. A heavy iron or steel rope passes over a
frame down into the quarry at an angle. The frame is
made of three pieces of timber, twenty feet long by 10"X
1U", and a piece 10 feet 10"X1G". The three pieces 20 feet
long are framed together in the,shape of a triangle, with
the 16 feet piece framed into the apex of the triangle. In
the sixteen feet piece two slots are cut, in which are placed
wheels to carry the cables. The upper wheel is placed so
that its top just clears the top of the frame. The other
wheel is put two or three feet lower down. The frame is
then set up at a convenient place on the dump, some ten or
fifteen feet from the edge of the quarry, so as to allow room
for a track between it and the quarry. A wire cable from
an inch and half to two inches in diameter is then passed
over the upper .pull y, taken over to the opposite side of the
quarry and fastened to an iron rod set in a drill hole on the
side. The cable should be fastened low enough to make an
angle of at least 10°. The other end of the cable is passed
around a log, held in place by posts sunk into the ground.
The cable is then stretched tightly over the pulley and
fastened. Over this fixed cable a traveler passes. The
traveler is made of an iron frame carrying four pully wheels :
the two upper wheels work on the fixed cable. The hoist-
ing rope passes from the winding drum, through a block at
the foot of the frame, up through the sheave at the top. then
through the first pulley on the traveler, down around a loose
pulley, back around the second pulley and is fastened on to
to the loose pulley. This loose pulley has a hook on its
lower side to which can be fastened the waste-box or chains
for hoisting blocks of slate.
The hoisting is done by an engine of from thirty to forty
horse-power. Those with double c}dinders, working the
drum by friction clutches, seem to be preferred. The de-
scent of the cable into the quarry is controlled by an iron
strap brake around the drum, the engine being discon-
nected. The following terms being peculiar to the slate
district, an explanation of them is given :
Cable-derrick. A derrick composed of a fixed wire rope
descending into the quarry at an angle from a post near the
edge of the quarry. Over this fixed rope a traveler passes
composed of an iron frame with three to four wheels, the
hoisting rope passing through the lower wheels, while the
upper wheels travel over the fixed rope.
Curl. A slate rock in which the cleavage is curved and
twisted irregularly is said to have a curl in it.
225
Ribbon. A thin bed of slate.
Ribbon slate. Slates that are made up of a number of
small beds.
Sculp. To break a block of slate at an angle to the cleav-
age, (approximately at right angles)
Split. Same as cleavage.
Square of slate. The number of slate necessarjT to cover
100 square feet on a roof
After the slate block is loosened from its bed, if it is not
too large, it is hoisted to the surfuce by the derrick, put on
a truck, and run to a slate-makers shanty, and dumped on
to the ground. One of the splitter s assistants then with a
chisel and hammer cuts it into blocks of suitable siz^ for
flitting into slates. These blocks are about two inches
thick and of sufficient surface to be capable of being dressed
into finished slate of the various sizes. Supposing the block
to come out of the quarry one foot thick, eight feet long
and four feet broad — the bank-man takes a chisel and ham-
nier and cuts a notch some three to six inches deep into the
middle of the end of t\\e block ; then with a large wooden
mallet he drives a chisel into the end of this notch, watch-
ing carefully the direction the crack takes. If it goes par-
allel with one of the sides he continues; if not, bjT usinsr the
mallet on one or the other sides of the notch he brings it
back towards the proper direction. After he breaks the
rock lengthwise into two, he then cross cuts it in the same
manner into four pieces. Then with a fiat chisel he splits
each one of the foot-thick blocks through the middle, splits
them again, until he has them reduced to a thickness of
about two inches, and then these blocks are piled up beside
the splitter.
The splitter takes a block and with a wooden mallet and
a broad, thin chisel (he generally has two or more chisels
of different lengths) he splits the block through the mid-
dle, and continues dividing the blocks into equal halves
until they are reduced to the thinness of a roofing slate. .
These thin pieces of slate with irregular edges are then
taken by an assistant, generally a boy. and squared off into
the regular sizes by means of a dressing machine.
There are two kinds of dressing machines in general use.
They are made of an iron frame work some two and a half
feet high, having a horizontal knife edge on its upper side.
Working against this knife edge is a curved knife, working
in a hinge moved by a treddle. The upward motion is ob-
tained by a spring. At right angles to the knife edge, and
on one side of the machine, an iron arm projects towards
the workman. This arm has notches cut into it for the dif
ferent lengths and breadths of the slates. The other ma-
chine is built in the same manner, except that the cutter re-
volves on an axle something in the manner of an ordinary
straw cutting machine.
Lesley, et al., Geology of Lehigh and Northampton, 1883, pp. 139-142.
226
APPENDIX 23
Standard Sizes for Roofing Slate
227
Standard sizes for roofing slate.
u
u 6
•
* .
Nails
to
a
•
Nails
to
X
V
— eo
Square
(3-d).
3 £
■2 a
2 a
Square
(3d).
-5
£*
«5
Lbs.
Oz.
-3
'■J
1 *"
3 a
Lbs.
T)z.
24 x 14
98
10%
0
10
X
0
246
G%
2
7
24 x 12
114
10%
2
10
X
8
277
6%
2
12
22 x 14
10S
0%
3
14
X
14
187
5M»
1
13
22 x 11
120
9%
4
14
X
12
218
5Mr
2
3
22 x 11
138
9%
0
14
X
10
2G2
5M.
2
9
20 x 12
141
sy2
s
14
X
9
290
5%
2
14
20 x 11
154
8%
0
14
X
8
::27
5^
3
3
20 x 10
100
8%
11
14
X
7
374
5^
3
11
IS x 12
100
7%
n
12
X
12
200
4Vi
2
u
IS x 11
174
7%
n
12
X
10
320
4M,
3
2
IS x 10
102
7 M.
14
12
\
n
35(5
4%
3
8
IS X <)
213
7%
o
1
12
X
8
400
4Vi
3
15
10 x 12
185
0%
1
13
12
X
7
457
4M.
4
8
1(S x 10
221
0%
o
•»
12
X
0
533
4 M.
5
4
•Exposure when laid and spacing of lath.
Behre, Northampton, p. 290
No. of
No. of
Size
of Slate.
slate to
a square.
Size of Slate.
slate to
a square
24 bv 14 inches,
98
374
24 bv 13
•«
105
14 by 6 " ......
436
24 by 12
a
114
12 bv 8 "
400
24 bv 11
"
124
457
24 bv 10
ii
138
| 12 bv 6 "
570
22 bv 13
«<
116
! 12 bv 5 "
640
22 bv 12
a
126
10 by 8 "
514
22 bv 11
tt
138
10 by 7 "
5S8
22 bv 10
tt
151
686
20 bv 12
ki
141
10 by 5 "
823
20 by 11
"
154
10 bv 4 "
1039
20 bv 10
ii
169
9 by 8 '«
600
20 bv 9
<t
188
9bv7 "
686
18 bv 11
ii
174
9 bv6 "
800
18 bv 10
ii
192
9 bv 5 "
900
18 bv 9
ti
213
9 by 4 "
1200
18 by 8
it
230 1
8 by 6 "
900
ir, bv 10
n
2lT2
1152
16 by 9
ii
246 J
8 bv 4 "
1440
16 bv 8
ii
277
7 bv5 "
1440
16 by 7
ii
316
7 by 4 "
180U
14 bv 9
• i
300
7 by 3 "
2400
14 by 8
ii
327
Lesley, et al., Geology of Lehigh and Northampton, p. 142
228
APPENDIX 24
Old Time Slate Quarries Slateford Farm and Vicinity
James S. Yolton, 1984
229
t?
3 .
3 .*
J3 IE
t Hi
-P o
o p.
o
S--2*
O n!
CD CO
0"
60
4*1
C2
o> t-
-P >> 03
-H
cpcc
-t-i-t
c
•r-173 3
<d co
C C rH
O 03 03
•oc
I) -c
Q. • C
O E cfl
i-t CO
P P
-P c
O
>> o
03 03
"2 E
-C o
o to
• 10
>> 03
C -P
S.,3
E CO
O
c 10
cfl O cO
t-< O r-l
(0
7 I
O.T3
03 03
<S§
CQ-C
22
73 Q> 1 — I
£ CO
C
>» O
rH i-l
J2 -P
O 73
J5 8
• c.
73
03 73
Q. 03
O -C
i-t 03
CC-P
C-rl
•HlH
P Cfl
D-3
• IO(J
■P dt
•H 03 O
> CD O
■H Ov Q.
8..
> a*
CD C P
> o
03 'm o
> ?
03 P
"E ».
03 03
T3 >
C 03
o c 1
Cfl o
"a
<- 73 O
O DC
-P O
03 cfl-O
5£ 3 C
to co.a;
p
Co
0.' o
03 O.
ca
73 .
Q 03 '-^
cEB
■H x> cfl
C H
73 <fl CO
03 i5
?H *
O -P
r-l .-H
J) 03 r-l
> -O cfl
- .H 3
to cr
(S
-3
CO
ON
o
SP
CO
03
CD
E
•%
£
C
i
o
73
73 .
CD E
C cfl
•rl m
25
O 10
5
03
E
C C "£
O O CD
-h a
Cox:
CD c -P
> 0) 3
•H C O
Q -P 10
p
to o
c o
to e
cfl
C CO
s
o
r-l >,
(0 P
p?g c
c
5 .
E +>
CD 10
cfl
C 03
£3
Q
-C
c
■P
-P
0
a
H
•O
9)
-*-
CD
T3
H
-c
■\3
O
•
c
O
*
.9
£
2
J*
o
73 o)
0 ~ *
73
03
CO =H ^ to UN <D
X .*
cfl o
E - O
73 _3 73
03 0)
73 JH .O
O -P
O C-
h ec
&i T3 H
£3
P. O CD
03 73
p/\J-\
O CM
•a
03
a.
rH
CO
73
CD
J2
c o
03 P-
■g-
, >> 3 O
CO XJ £ CO
CD
00
03 c.
St"
O CD
CO CD
B»3
«M iO
o) cr
b^
> «p
0 0
(h -H
3^
bo
cr<c!
Q u>
-p
T3
•H
*
8
03
E
cfl
•H
CO
CM
CM
rH
X
- +^>
O 73
r-l ?
O
o
ON
-.2
^ CO
cfl t:
(D C
5 °
►H 03
— *-
>> be
r-{ C
-X cfl
>s ho-p
X D O
<S 2 2
03
-P
o
■C CO
< 4=
s
-p
10
£
g
3
H
0-
cd
10
73
5
t3
5
-P
co
(1
■p
cfl P
r^3
4h
k,
Vh
O
r-l a
M-
a
c
C/3 fee
C O
CM
[fE
e 0
•rj CM
U 0
+3
H
cfl C
V
03
be
73
03
c
b?
•H
73 CO
O <;
I 3
:s -
«-
TO
25
CO O
z °
c cy r-i
O rH
8 73
B
CO
rH
cn
r-l -C —
5 JO
1-1 e-
to
U 73
O -H
C CO
bO
b3
c *-
O cfl
bG
O •
- -p
88
cr o
03 p CC .
73 ^ VrN 3 _
•h cfl c^ a u jz %
W 3 ro a) -P CD
O Cm 2.l>-rl
■P rH O O >
(0 CD -H 73 C C
03 -P Cfl J= C ®
* <8-L^ceb'H
rH E-
C CO
c *-
°s
CD
to t;
E
■a
0)
r
rr
tc
bO p
C P rH Q
,H CD O -P
£ 10 -P
10 C X2 p
CO Q O P
03
&
■H
cr.
DO
230
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1. Southeastern Pennsylvania Physiographic Regions.
2. Southeastern Pennsylvania Soil Parent Materials.
3. The Slate Regions of Pennsylvania.
4. Slate Belts - Delaware Water Gap; West Side.
5. Map of Pennsylvania by William Scull 1770.
6. Scull Map Detail - Northampton County.
7. Old Northampton County 1776.
8. History Map of the Forks of the Delaware - Chidsey, 1938.
9. Map of the State of Pennsylvania by Reading Howell 1790.
10. Map of Northampton & Lehigh Counties, Pa. - 1830 by H . S.
Tanner.
11. Atlas of Northampton County - Upper Mount Bethel Township by
D. G. Beers, 1874.
12. Nicholas Scull Survey of Northampton County Property 1753.
13. Distribution of Pennsylvania Germans.
14. 1930s view of Slateford Farm. Charlotte Cyr Jewell Collection.
15. Louis Cyr on Slateford Farm house porch early 1930s. Charlotte Cyr
Jewell Collection.
16. Lower Cyr Farm, 1930s. Charlotte Cyr Jewell Collection.
17. Making Hay at Slateford, 1936. Charlotte Cyr Jewell Collection.
18. View Southeast from Slateford Farm, August 1936. Charlotte Chyr
Jewell Collection.
19. Haying, Slateford Farm 1940s. Charlotte Cyr Jewell Collection.
20. Haying, Slateford Farm 1940s. Charlotte Cyr Jewell Collection.
21. Louis Cyr Raking Hay, Slateford Farm 1948. Charlotte Cyr Jewell
Collection.
22. Woodshed, Slateford Farm circa 1940-1950. Charlotte Cyr Jewell
Collection.
231
23. Cutting Hay, Slateford Farm circa 1940-1950. Charlotte Cyr Jewell
Collection .
24. Slateford Farm early 1950s. Charlotte Cyr Jewell Collection.
232
Illustration 1. Southeastern Pennsylvania Physiographic Regions
Illustration 2. Southeastern Pennsylvania Soil Parent Materials.
234
SOUTHEASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA
PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS
SOUTHEASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA
SOIL PARENT MATERIALS
t^^v} Sandstone
~~j Crystalline schists ^^Serpentine
and gneisses ~~J Coastal sediments
'i"'Vd Shale, gray Hill and mountain
Shale, red KVVvi soils
Lemon, Best Poor Man's Country, p. 471
235
Illustration 3. The Slate Regions of Pennsylvania
236
MARYLAND
5c *ti •' M«q
r ±
The Slat« Regions of Pennsylvania.
Merriman, "Slate Regions of Pennsylvania" Stone, p. 78.
237
Illustration 4. Slate Belts - Delaware Water Gap; West Side.
238
Lesley, et al., Geology of Lehigh and Northampton, p. 157
239
o
3
u
£
03
OJ
'c
05
>
l/)
c
c
0)
Q.
03
LO
C
o
'■*->
03
■M
(/)
3
240
V «-
T/2
u
&v
> ^ £
K*y
*-'.
i
'9s W
Mi,.
i
(V
♦ ' « "/■
/
ay
ft
#
1%
i
>t<
<«
$
v«- >:
fr. Vf. ^lA',
§=ir
\<:i
x
n««
^.
■!'<
*k
I
-\
'♦ «
iSS
\.
j
si
<fig&
I *35H
< ♦
,^:
£
4, SI
^i
•4.^0
»
'V
«<«
V
r/ I-"
Illustration 6. Scull Map Detail - Northampton County,
242
^
Eg
•Mr.
•7
243
CD
c
3
O
U
c
o
a
E
nj
-C
■(->
s_
o
2
o
c
o
J_
■(->
to
3
244
T3
i
C
05
-o
3
o >.
CD
o
^ *->
T3
>-(
>H
c
i— i
(1)
r3
E §
a)
>
•i-i
o
"O
a; u
4-<
o
O
-C
r,
+J
■P o
+->
01
(h
^i M
•H
c-
rt
O -H
E
CO
•H
-5
c o-
in
§
x-o
e
s
-O ro
:_,_v^^
vO
r«.
r-~
i>
i
01
c
— 1
c
a
0)
M.
X
r
D
*
z
0
0
0
■
u
*—
LL_
UL
o °
u
•\
,V
5 %%
< VV'";.
v[V-. 7%%" \».X% s
/
/
>
\
V /
%%.
/
/
/
y
00
00
I/)
u
0)
Q
r.
J*
o
LL
(U
a
>
o
+->
ir
oo
c
o
ra
s_
+j
in
■3
246
247
Ilustration 9. Map of the State of Pennsylvania by Reading Howell
1790.
248
249
Illustration 10. Map of Northampton & Lehigh Counties, Pa. - 1830
by H. S. Tanner.
250
K&p of iVrthampton i. Lehigh OCouatte8^i-18S0
*, H.S.Taauer-engreTed by J-JWjM * i^nkworth
;. .-ivvt-
^»X«.'».
■ v-. • y'.'v53'
^h
251
Illustration 11. Atlas of Northampton County - Upper Mount Bethel
Township by D. G. Beers, 1874.
252
253
Ilustration 12. Nicholas Scull Survey of Northampton County
Property 1753.
254
/? - * - 2»
^.
iJV TESTIMONY thai lh.c above is a, copy of I he original remaining on/Ue.in,thr,
Department of Internal, Affairs of Penn.ii/lvav.ia,, made con-
forinahlij to a.n ./let of ,/f.i.iemhly approved the 16th day of
Fehrna.v]/, 1883, 1, have hereunto set my If and, a,nd caused
the Seal, of said JJoparttnont to bo affixed a.t J I nrristmrjj , this
j(.a> cTrSAT^- day ofr^^£&/or</'<>rv/2--—lSi) 6.
60 />^o^tC3^
Secretary of Internal affairs.
255
Ilustration 13. Distribution of Pennsylvania Germans,
256
Htti^ jgg Distinctively fisnnsyhxmia German Covnlies
\^>S$$$$\ Qiuitties with Rnnsylvartia German Sections
DISTRIBUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA GERMANS
Kollmorgen, "Pennsylvania German," p. 263.
257
c
o
+J
u
o
U
0)
$
0)
-5
U
0)
■M
+->
o
t_
05
-C
U
E
j_
(X3
IX.
T3
o
4-
<D
+->
jtl
CO
5
0)
o
oo
CD
03
258
.
s - _*. - *
•■. $\
i -if - i
■','.. ---•
f _ .
-
:. £ - 'v.
^* • .. *
• 3 '€
•H>A^
I
*
o
0)
x:
o
I_
o
a
OJ
1/5
3
o
•
x:
c
o
e
'+->
s_
u
1X1
aj
LL.
o
"O L
s_
O
—
4-
"-*"
(U
d>
4->
$
ID
<D
</)
— )
S_
o
>
U
J_
>
u
0)
o
I/)
£_
5
fD
o
iZ
_i
u
LO
c
o
£_
•M
260
c
o
o
_CU
o
u
0)
a>
—>
s_
>
u
(U
■M
+->
o
L.
03
-C
u
to
o
00
E
>
U
S-
0)
o
CD
c
o
s_
■M
in
262
c
o
+■»
u
o
u
OJ
-5
>
u
<D
■M
+->
_o
ro
sz
U
CD
00
CD
■o
O
4-
<jj
■M
_oj
+->
rrj
>
X
D)
C
!*
OJ
c
o
ro
s_
+->
CO
3
264
f
CD
00
CD
r~
■M
CO
3
CT
1
D
<
v.
e
j_
oj
u_
,
c
T3
o
s_
o
+3
4-
u
d)
0)
+->
05
o
t7)
U
£
o
4-
m
-~>
■M
CO
c_
03
>
JT
U
+->
3
<D
o
to
o
5
03
c
> u
co
c
o
03
s_
+->
CO
3
266
w
I
«r
c
o
+J
u
Q)
O
U
CD
0)
-3
s_
>
U
0)
4->
■M
_o
«J
-C
U
o
CD
E
03
cu
CO
c
>
X
«cn
c
o
'■*->
(TJ
+->
(/)
3
268
c
_o
'■+->
u
0)
~o
u
a;
cu
(J
a;
+-»
+->
o
s_
oj
-C
U
o
CD
£
■o
1.
o
<+-
(1)
+-»
c
>
03
X
o
CM
c
o
03
i_
•M
1/3
D
270
c
o
u
Q)
o
u
0)
U
<D
■M
■M
o
$_
fU
-C
U
00
E
s_
03
LL
■a
s_
O
4-
0)
J5
CO
03
X
en
0}
a:
u
(/]
'd
o
CM
c
o
'■)->
(TJ
£_
■M
to
272
Ilustration 22. Woodshed, Slateford Farm circa 1940-1950. Charlotte
Cyr Jewell Collection.
274
c
o
u
o
u
0)
$
~J
>
u
0)
+-»
•M
o
-C
u
o
LO
a>
\ —
i
o
CD
U
E
s_
aj
u_
■D
5-
a
<v
■M
CO
>
re
X
O)
c
+j
u
c
o
+J
03
s_
+->
</>
r>
276
c
o
u
o
u
(U
0)
U
0)
■M
■M
i_
0J
U
to
O
LO
CD
CO
£
03
■o
o
0)
■M
<3-
C\J
c
o
+-»
(/)
3
278
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
MANUSCRIPT MATERIALS
Bushkill, Pennsylvania. Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
Historical Files.
Elizabeth D. Walters, Research Notes.
Easton, Pennsylvania. Easton Area Public Library.
Henry F. Marx Local History and Genealogy Collection.
Church Records
Vertical File
Easton, Pennsylvania. Northampton County Government Center.
Deeds
Prothonotary Office
Register of Wills
Tax Records
Easton, Pennsylvania. Northampton County Historical and Genealogical
Society.
Revolutionary War Records
Tax Records
Church Records
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission.
Division of Land Records
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. County of Philadelphia. City Hall.
Register of Wills
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
Manuscript Department
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Monroe County Courthouse.
Deeds
Winterthur, Delaware. Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum.
Joseph Downs Manuscript Collection
The records kept in these repositories provided much of the data on the
Pipher family and the slate business activites of James Madison Porter.
Wills, estate inventories, sheriff's records, deeds of land purchases, tax
records and church records helped to piece together at least a skeletal
framework of the Piphers1 land purchases, genealogy and personal
property. The original Penn grant and Scull survey were located in
Harrisburg. The Pipher family history is still somewhat sparse because
of the lack of diaries, letters or other personal papers, but at least the
official county records marked their passing. Church records proved to
281
be a big help because in Northampton County marriage records were only
kept in 1852-1854 and from 1885 on, and the earliest death records date
only from 1874.
PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS
BOOKS
Bowen, Eli. The Pictorial Sketch-book of Pennsylvania Or, its scenery,
internal improvements, resources, and agriculture, popularly
described by Eli Bowen . Philadelphia: W. W. Smith, 1954.
Brodhead, L. W. The Delaware Water Gap Its Scenery, Its Legends and
Early History. Philadelphia: Sherman & Co., Printers, 1870.
Bureau of the Census. Heads of Families at the First Census of the
United States Taken in the Year 1790 Pennsylvania. Washington,
D. C: Government Printing Office, 1908.
Burrell, A. B. Reminiscences of George LaBar The Centurian of Monroe
County, Pa. , Who j_s Still Living j_n His 107th Year. Philadelphia:
Claxton, Remser and Haffelfinger, 1870.
Ellis, Capt. F. History of Northampton County, Pennsylvania with
Illustrations Descriptive of rts Scenery. Philadelphia: n.p., 1877.
Ferris Bros1 Northampton County Directory 1885. Wilmington, Delaware:
Ferris Bros, Printers and Book Binders, 1885.
Filby, P. William ed. with Mary K. Meyer. Passenger and Immigration
Lists Index. Supplement. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1982.
Hazard, Samuel. "Early History of Pennsylvania." The Register of
Pennsylvania. vol. II Philadelphia: n.p. July 1828 to January.
The Register of Pennsylvania, vol. IV Philadelphia: n.p. July
1829 to January.
The Register of Pennsylvania, vol. IX Philadelphia: n.p.
January to July 1832
Hinke, William John, ed. Pennsylvania German Pioneers A Publication of
the Original Lists of Arrivals [n the Port of Philadelphia From 1727
to 1808. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1966. vol. I
1727-1775 by Ralph Beaver Strassburger.
Kieffer, The Rev. Henry Martyn, translator. Some of the First Settlers
of "The Forks of the Delaware" and Their Descendants Being a
Translation From the German of The Record Books of The First
Reformed Church of Easton, Penna. From 1760 to 1852 Baltimore:
Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1973.
282
Lesley, J. P.; Sanders, R. H.; Chance, H. M.; Prime, F.; and Hall,
C. E. The Geology of Lehigh and Northampton Counties. Second
Geological Survey of Pennsylvania. vol. I. Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania: Board of Commissioners, 1883.
Myers, Albert Cook. Quaker Arrivals at Philadelphia 1682-1750.
Philadelphia: Ferris & Leach, 1902.
Rupp, Israel Daniel. History of Northampton, Lehigh, Monroe, Carbon
and Schuylkill Counties. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Hickok and
Cantine, 1845. reprint ed., New York: Arno Press & the New York
Times, 1971.
Trow's New York City Directory, vol. ciii, New York: The Trow City
Directory Company, for the Year Ending May 1, 1890.
. vol civ, New York: The Trow City Directory Company, for the
Year Ending May 1, 1891.
These published primary sources provided information on
Northampton County history and on the Pipher family activities. The
Broadhead, Ellis and Rupp texts provided contemporary descriptions of
the county. George LaBar's reminiscences contained a brief description
of Samuel Pipher and recollections of life in the late 1700s and the 1800s
in the Delaware Water Gap area. Hazard's Register offered a
contemporary description of James Madison Porter's slate business as well
as census information on slavery in Northampton County. The Filby,
Myers, Kieffer and Hinke texts provided information on the Strettell
family immigration and the origins of the Pipher (Pfeiffer) name.
Geological information and data concerning Upper Mount Bethel Township
slate quarrying was obtained from the geological surveys of Lesley, et
al., and Rogers. The New York City directories provided limited data
about John A. Morison.
UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENTS
Agricultural Schedules. Pennsylvania, Federal Decennial Censuses,
1850-1880, Roll 7, 1850, Microcopy T-1138, National Archives.
. Roll 17, 1860, Microcopy T-1138, National Archives.
. Roll 28, 1870, Microcopy T-1138, National Archives.
. Roll 51, 1880, Microcopy T-1138, National Archives.
Henry, Matthew S. "Manuscript History of Northampton County,
Pennsylvania" 1851. Typescript located in Marx Collection, Easton
Public Library. Original handwritten copy at Historical Society of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
283
Hinke, Dr. Wm. J., translator. "Church Record of the Reformed and
Lutheran Congregations in Nazareth Township Northampton County,
Pennsylvania formerly The Dryland Church now the Trinity Lutheran
and Dryland Reformed Hecktown, Pennsylvania" 1929. Typescript
located in Marx Collection, Easton Public Library.
. copier. "Church Record of the Lutheran and Reformed
Congregations in Upper Mount Bethel Township Northampton County
1774-1833." August-October 1934. Typescript located in Marx
Collection, Easton Public Library.
Leiby, Rev. A. S., translator. "Tax Lists in Northampton County Court
House 1774-1806." Typescript located in Marx Collection, Easton
Public Library.
Marx, Henry F[orster], ed. "Abstracts of Wills Northampton County
1752-1840" vol. 10 in 16 volumes. Easton Public Library, Easton,
Pennsylvania, 1935. Bound typescript located in Marx Collection,
Easton Public Library.
, ed. "Oaths of Allegience of Northampton County, Pennsylvania
1777-1784 . . . from Original Lists of John Arndt, Recorder of
Deeds 1777-1800" Easton Public Library, Easton, Pennsylvania, 1932.
"Northampton County Tax List For the Year 1761" Copied by the
Personnel of the Works Progress Administration. Easton,
Pennsylvania, 1938. Typescript located in Marx Collection, Easton
Public Library.
"Provencial Tax Assessment 1782 Northampton County." Original located
in Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
"United States Direct Tax of 1798: Tax Lists for the State of
Pennsylvania" Microcopy No. 372 Roll 12 Fifth Direct Tax Division
vols 360-373 First Through Fourth Assessment Districts. Microfilm
located at Federal Archives and Records Center, Philadelphia.
Weaver, Ethan Allen, collector. "Local Historical and Biographical Notes."
Germantown, Pennsylvania, 1906. Typescript located in Marx
Collection, Easton Public Library.
Williams, Richard T. and Mildred C. "Proprietary Tax Northampton
County, Pennsylvania 1772" Danboro, Pennsylvania. Typescript
located in Marx Collection, Easton Public Library.
. "Soldiers of the American Revolution Northampton County,
Pennsylvania" Danboro, Pennsylvania. Typescript located in
Northampton County Historical and Genealogical Society.
284
These unpublished primary source documents also provided data on
Northampton County and Upper Mount Bethel Township history, as well as
the scarce information known about the Pipher family. The Matthew S.
Henry manuscript is an excellent source for the county and township
history. The Hinke church records, the Marx will abstracts and oath of
allegiance records, and the Williams records all provided data on the
Pipher family.
ARTICLES
Clunn, John Hugg. "March on Pittsburgh, 1794." The Pennsylvania
Magazine of History and Biography LXXI no. 1 (January 1947):
44-76.
Gilpin, Joshua. "Journey to Bethlehem." The Pennsylvania Magazine of
History and Biography XLVI no. 1 (1922): 15-38, 122-153.
"Journal of William Black." The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and
Biography I no. 4 (1877): 404-419.
All three of these articles provided contemporary observations and
descriptions of the Morris brothers and their wives, the Strettell sisters.
NEWSPAPERS
Jeffersonian. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. March 19, 1896.
New York Times. May 18, 1937.
Stroudsburg Daily Times. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. April 18, 1896.
These newspaper articles provided data on Samuel Pipher, the last
Pipher owner of Slateford Farm, and on Charles Munsch.
SECONDARY SOURCES
BOOKS
Alderfer, E. Gordon. Northampton Heritage. Easton, Pennsylvania:
The Northampton County Historical and Genealogical Society, 1953.
Behre, Charles H. Jr. Slate in Northampton County Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Topographic and Geologic Survey.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: The Telegraph Press, 1927.
• Slate m Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geological Survey,
Topographic and Geologic Survey, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: The
Telegraph Press, 1933.
285
Bidwell, Percy Wells, and Falconer, John I. History of Agriculture in
the Northern United States 1620-1860. New York: Peter Smith,
1941.
Brown, Ira V. The Negro Vn Pennsylvania History. Pennsylvania History
Studies No. 11. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania
Historical Association, 1970.
Brumbaugh, G. Edwin. "Pennsylvania German Colonial Architecture."
Part II Pennsylvania German Society Proceedings at Harrisburg, Pa.
October 17, 1930 and Papers Prepared for the Society, XLI pp.
5-60. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Published by the Society, 1933.
The Centennial Book Commemorating the 100th Anniversary of Bangor's
Incorporation. Bangor, Pennsylvania: n.p., 1975.
Chidsey, A[ndrew] D[wight] Jr. A Frontier Village Pre- Revolutionary
Easton. Easton, Pennsylvania: The Northampton County Historical
and Genealogical Society, 1940.
. The Penn Patents j_n the Forks of the Delaware. Easton,
Pennsylvania: The Northampton County Historical and Genealogical
Society, 1937.
Dale, T. Nelson et al. Slate m the United States. U. S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 586. Washington, D. C: Government Printing
Office, 1914.
Danhof, Clarence. Change jn Agriculture The Northern United States
1820-70. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,
1969.
Dornbusch, Charles H. and Heyl, John K. Pennsylvania German Barns.
The Pennsylvania German Folklore Society vol. 21. Allentown,
Pennsylvania: Schlechter's, 1956.
Dunaway, Wayland Fuller. A History of Pennsylvania. New York:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1935.
Epstein, Jack B. Geology of the Stroudsburg Quadrangle and Adjacent
Areas Pennsylvania-New Jersey. U. S. Geological Survey, open-file
report. 1971.
iscellaneous Field Studies. U. S. Geological Survey, Map MF
578 A, 1974.
Federal Writers' Project. Northampton County Guide. Works Projects
Administration, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Times Publishing
Co., 1939.
Fletcher, Stevenson Whitcomb. Pennsylvania Agriculture and Country
Life vol. I 1640-1840. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission, 1950; reprint ed . , 1971.
286
. Pennsylvania Agriculture and Country Life. vol. II 1840-1940.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission, 1955.
Geiser, Karl Frederick. Redemptioners and Indentured Servants in the
Colony and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. New Haven,
Connecticut: Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Co., 1901.
Gilbert, Russell Wieder. A Picture of the Pennsylvania Germans.
Pennsylvania History Studies No. 1. Gettysburg, Pennsylvania:
The Pennsylvania Historical Association, 1971.
Glassie, Henry. Pattern [n the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern
United States. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1968.
Goddard, Ives. "Delaware." Trigger, Bruce G., vol. ed. Northeast,
vol. 15. Sturtevant, William C, gen. ed. Handbook of North
American Indians. Washington, D. C: Smithsonian Institution,
1978.
Heller, William J. History of Northampton County and the Grand Valley
of the Lehigh. vols. I & II. Boston: The American Historical
Society, 1920.
Herrick, Cheesman A. White Servitude hi Pennsylvania. Freeport, New
York: Books for Libraries Press, 1926, reprint ed., 1970.
Keller, Robert Brown. History of Monroe County Pennsylvania.
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, 1927.
Kline, Eileen T.; Emery, Walter C; and Emery, Edith May. "An Early
History of the Portland Area." Toth, Albert M., coordinator. Slate
Belt Bicentennial Heritage, n.p.: (1975?)
Lemon, James T. The Best Poor Man's Country A Geographical Study of
Early Southeastern Pennsylvania. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
Press, 1972.
Laury, Preston A. Index to the Scotch- Irish of Northampton County,
vol. 1 supplement. Easton, Pennsylvania: The Northampton County
Historical and Genealogical Society, 1939.
Long, Amos Jr. Farmsteads and Their Buildings. Lebanon,
Pennsylvania: Applied Art Publishers, 1972.
Lloyd, JoAn., and Kline, Eileen, eds. Portland Area Centennial
1876-1976. Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania: Slate Belt Printers, Inc.,
1976.
Malone, Dumas., ed. Dictionary of American Biography. vols. VII and
VIM. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934, 1935.
287
Miller, Benjamin Leroy. Northampton County Pennsylvania Geology and
Geography. Topographic and Geologic Survey. Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania: n.p., 1939.
Mineral Resources of the Appalachian Region. Professional Paper 580,
U. S. Geological Survey. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1968.
Moon, Robert C., The Morris Family of Philadelphia. 5 vols. Philadephia:
By the Author, 1898. (vol. II).
Schlebecker, John T. Living Historical Farms A Walk Into the Past.
Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1968.
Whereby We Thrive A History of American Farming, 1607-1972.
Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1975.
Schenk, Hiram H., ed. Encyclopedia of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania: National Historical Association, Inc., 1932.
Schmidt, Hubert G. Rural Hunterdon An Agricultural History. Westport,
Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1972.
Skillman, David Bishop. The Biography of a College Being the History of
the First Century of the Life of Lafayette College. vol. I Easton,
Pennsylvania: Lafayette College, 1932.
Two Hundred Years of Life 'm Northampton County, Pa. A Bicentennial
Review. vol. 8 Easton, Pennsylvania: Northampton County
Bicentennial Commission, 1976. part III "Agriculture" by Samuel
Lewis.
. part II "Business and Industry" by Dr. Alfred Pierce.
Turner, Edward Raymond. The Negro m Pennsylvania
Slavery-Servitude- Freedom 1639-1861 . New York: Negro
Universities Press, 1911, reprint ed., 1969.
Wood, Ralph, ed . The Pennsylvania Germans. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1942. II. "The Pennsylvania German
Farmer" by Walter M. Kollmorgen.
Several of these secondary source books provided the bulk of the
information found in the agriculture chapter. The Bidwell and Falconer
text is an excellent study of agricultural change, as is the Danhof text.
Fletcher's two volume text is a lengthy, general narrative of Pennsylvania
agriculture and is cited in numerous bibliographies. The Lemon text is
excellent reading on Southeastern Pennsylvania geography and
agriculture. Schmidt's study of Hunterdon, New Jersey provided valuable
comparative data on agricultural practices across the Delaware River from
Slateford Farm. The Smithsonian Institution's John T. Schlebecker has
written very readable texts on the history of American agriculture and
the philosophy behind the "living" historical farm
288
movement. Henry Glassie's viewpoint as a folklorist provided some insight
into the architectural practices of Pennsylvania Germans. Brumbaugh,
Dornbusch, Heyl, Kollmorgen and Lewis provided very useful information
on German farming practices, farming lifestyles and Northampton County
agricultural information. Long's text on farming homesteads is an
excellent general introduction to that type of architecture.
Data on the slate industry in Northampton County was obtained from
Pierce's text and the geological survey work of Miller and especially of
Behre Jr. Epstein's geological data and descriptions of the Slateford area
quarries aided greatly in the attempt to identify quarries and their
histories. Dale's text and Mineral Resources provided further information
on the slate industry.
Biographical information on the Penn family and Nicholas Scull was
found in Dumas Malone's invaluable Dictionary of American Biography, in
Schenk's encyclopedia and in Dunaway's general history. Data on James
Madison Porter was found also in Malone, and in Skillman's history of
Lafayette College. Biographical information on the Morris brothers, Amos
Strettell and Ann and Frances Strettell Morris was located in Moon's
history of the Morris family.
The history of slavery and indentured servitude can be found in the
Brown, Geiser, Herrick and Turner texts. Turner's book, in particular,
is an excellent source for the history of Blacks in Pennsylvania.
Bicentennial fervor resulted in the research and writing of many
local histories and Northampton County benefitted from these efforts.
Local county and township history was obtained from the Kline, Emery
and Emery text as well as from the Lloyd and Kline history and the
Bangor centennial book. Local historian Andrew Dwight Chidsey Jr.
provided data on Penn activities in Easton. Alderfer and Heller also
provided valuable data on Northampton County. The WPA guide to the
county was very useful because of its synthesis of information. Laury's
index to the county's Scotch-Irish included census information which
mentioned Samuel Pipher. Ives Goddard's scholarly article on the
Delaware Indians aided in establishing tribal names and history.
ARTICLES
Bressler, Leo A. "Agriculture Among the Germans in Pennsylvania
During the Eighteenth Century." Pennsylvania History XXII no. 2
(April 1955): 103-133.
Brunhouse, R. L. "The Effect of the Townshend Acts in Pennsylvania."
The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography LIV no. 4
(1930): 355-373.
Bucher, Robert C. "The Cultural Backgrounds of Our Pennsylvania
Homesteads." Bulletin of the Historical Society of Montgomery
County, Pa. XV no. 3 (Fall 1966): 22-26.
289
Carling, William W. "Early Northampton County." Historical Bulletin of
the Northampton County Historical and Genealogical Society Easton,
Pennsylvania, no. 1 (May 1946): 1-6.
Clement, John. "A Sketch of William Biddle and Thomas Biddle." The
Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 14 (1890): 363-386.
Embury, Aymar II. "Pennsylvania Farmhouses Examples of Rural
Dwellings of a Hundred Years Ago." Architectural Record XXX
(November 1911): 475-485.
Gillespie, George Cuthbert. "Early Fire Protection and the Use of Fire
Marks." The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography XLVI
no. 3 (1922): 232-261.
Johnson, George Fiske. "Agriculture in Pennsylvania A Study of Trends,
County and State, since 1840." The Pennsylvania State College
School of Agriculture and Experiment Station, State College,
Pennsylvania Bulletin #484 (November 1, 1929): 3-94.
Lemon, James T. "The Agricultural Practices of National Groups in
Eighteenth-Century Southeastern Pennsylvania." The Geographical
Review LVI no. 4 (October 1966): 467-496.
Long, Amos Jr. "Fences in Rural Pennsylvania." Pennsylvania Folklife 12
no. 2 (Summer 1961): 30-35.
"Springs and Springhouses. " Pennsylvania Folklife 11 no. 1
(Spring 1960): 40-43.
Merriman, Mansfield. "The Slate Regions of Pennsylvania." Stone XVII
no. 2 (July 1898): 77-90.
Montgomery, Morton L. "Early Furnaces and Forges of Berks County,
Penna." The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography VIM
no. 1 (1884): 56-81.
"Notes and Queries." The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and
Biography 2 no. 1 (1878): 114-115.
"Porter, Founder of Lafayette, a Distinguished American." The Lafayette
Alumnus XVII no. 15 (April 1948): 3-4.
Wykoff, George S. "Notes and Documents." The Pennsylvania Magazine
of History and Biography LXVI no. 1 (January 1942): 94-105.
Wrigley, P. I. "Farm Tenancy in Pennsylvania." The Pennsylvania State
College School of Agriculture and Experiment Station, State College,
Pennsylvania Bulletin #383 (September 1939): 1-37.
These secondary source articles provided a great deal of the
information included in the chapter on building characteristics, farming
techniques and the Strettell-Morris families. The Clement, Brunhouse,
290
Gillespie, Montgomery, Wykoff and "Notes and Queries" all contained
passing references to Amos Strettell's activities in Philadelphia, his family
background, and to the business dealings of the Morris brothers. The
Bressler, Bucher and Lemon articles provided much useful data on
German farming techniques in Pennsylvania. Amos Long Jr.'s articles, as
well as the Aymar Embury III text, all contain descriptions of rural
architecture. The Johnson article contained useful agricultural statistics
and the Wrigley article was the only title found on the subject of
tenancy. The "Porter" article provided biographical information on James
Madison Porter.
REPORTS
U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Classified
Structure Field Inventory Report," Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, "Cabin at Slateford Farmhouse," by John B. Dodd.
1976. On file at DEWA.
U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Classified
Structure Field Inventory Report," Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, "Slateford Farmhouse," by John B. Dodd. 1976.
On file at DEWA.
U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Classified
Structure Field Inventory Report," Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, "Spring House at Slateford Farm," by John B.
Dodd. 1976. On file at DEWA.
U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Historic
Structures Report, Architectural Data, Slateford Farm, Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Area," by Penelope Hartshorne
Batcheler. Denver, Colorado, 1982. On file at DEWA.
U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Office of
Archeology and Historic Preservation, "Historic Structures Report,
Part I, Architectural Data Section on Historic Buildings," Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Area, by Norman M. Souder. July
1967. On file at DEWA.
U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service and U. S.
Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers.
"Delaware Water Gap, National Recreation Area, Historical
Architectural Survey," vol. I, by John B. Dodd. 1974. On file at
DEWA.
Batcheler's text provides much of the known data on the extant
structures located at Slateford Farm in terms of construction data,
probable year of construction and probable builder. The Dodd and
Souder texts provided data on the Slateford Farm buildings, including the
Munsch and Keifaber structures.
291
MAP
Beers, D. G. Atlas of Northampton County Pennsylvania. Philadelphia:
A. Pomeroy & Co., 1874.
This atlas revealed where several Piphers were living in 1874 and
cited the New York and Delaware River Slate Company as the owners of
Slateford Farm.
UNPUBLISHED SOURCES
Chidsey, Andrew Dwight Jr. "Easton and Northampton County Under the
Penns" Easton, Pennsylvania 1936. Typescript in Marx Collection,
Easton Public Library.
"Historical Notes From the Writings of Asa K. Mcllhaney" vol. I, Easton
Public Library, 1956. Typescript in Marx Collection, Easton Public
Library.
Hoffman, John N. "History of Slate in Pennsylvania." Address Before
the Northampton Historical Society at Weona Park, Pen Argyl, Pa.,
Northampton Historical and Genealogical Society, September 14, 1940.
Typescript at Northampton Historical and Genealogical Society.
Marx, Henry Forster. "Northampton county, evolution of townships,
bibliography of tax and assessment lists 1762-1812" 1936. Typescript
in Marx Collection, Easton Public Library.
Moyer, Jane S., and Christine Wroblewski. "Bicentennial Sketches For
the Celebration of the Bicentennial Year in Easton, Pa." Easton
Area Public Library, Easton, Pennsylvania, 1976. Typescript in
Easton Public Library.
Myers, Elizabeth L. "Newspaper Articles on Local History March
1931-February 1932. Article #6 "Slavery in Northampton County."
Typescript located in Marx Collection, Easton Public Library.
These secondary unpublished sources contained data on Northampton
County history. Chidsey's text discussed the 1737 Walking Purchase and
Penn land grants. Hoffman's text mentioned James Madison Porter's slate
dealings. Moyer and Wroblewski researched and wrote short vignettes of
county history for the Bicentennial, and two of these were biographical
sketches of James Madison Porter. Marx's text contained useful
information on the formation of Northampton County and Upper Mount
Bethel Township. Marx's text also contained maps of the county in the
1770s.
PAMPHLET
"A Chronology of Events in Pennsylvania Forestry Showing Things as
They Happened to Penn's Woods" Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
292
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources,
Office of Resources Management, Bureau of Forestry, 1975, 34 pages.
PERSONAL INTERVIEWS
Jewell, Charlotte Cyr. Portland, Pennsylvania. Interviews, August 29,
1984 and May 1, 1985.
McMillen, Matilda and E. Lee. Easton, Pennsylvania. Interview,
September 26, 1984.
Pittinger, Mary. Portland, Pennsylvania. Interview, September 30, 1970
by Albert Dillahunty. Typescript copy in DEWA files.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
Letter, Jim Ashton, The New York Historical Society to Sharon A. Brown,
September 26, 1984.
Letter, Bette Barker, Division of Archives and Records Management,
Department of State, State of New Jersey, to Sharon A. Brown,
October 3, 1984.
Letter, Clark Beck, Special Collections and Archives, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey to Sharon A.
Brown, September 26, 1984.
293
Fofm No 10 306 (Rev 10 74)
LNITLDS1 AILS DL.PAR1 MIM Ol 1HL IMLRIOK
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM
FOR FEDERAL PROPERTIES
FOR NPS USE ONLY
RECEIVED
DATE ENTERED
NAME
HISTORIC
Slateford Farm
SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS
TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS
AND/OR COMMON
Pipher Farm, Laurel Hill
(LOCATION
STREET & NUMBER
Route 611 National Park Road
N/A
_N0T FOR PUBLICATION
CITY TOWN
Slateford vicinity of
N/A
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
15th
STATE
CODE
Pennsylvania 042
COUNTY
Northampton
CODE
095
CLASSIFICATION
CATEGORY
OWNERSHIP
STATUS
DISTRICT
X PUBLIC
-XoCCUPIED
X^BUILDING(S)
— PRIVATE
_UNOCCUPIED
_STRUCTURE
_BOTH
—WORK IN PROGRESS
_SITE
PUBLIC ACQUISITION
ACCESSIBLE
_OBJECT
N/Ain process
-XYES RESTRICTED
N/-ABEING CONSIDERED
_YES UNRESTRICTED
_NO
PRESENT USE
X_AGRICULTURE X_MUSEUM
_COMMERCIAL X_PARK
EDUCATIONAL PRIVATE RESIDENCE
— ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS
—GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC
—INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION
—MILITARY —OTHER
AGENCY
REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS lit applicable)
Mid-Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Servirp
STREET & NUMBER
143 South Third Street
CITY TOWN
Philadelphia
V, CINITY OF
J^A.
STATE
Pennsylvania 19106
LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
COURTHOUSE
REGISTRY OF DEEDS. ETC
Recorder's Office, Northampton
County Government Center
STREET & NUMBER
Rpvpnth and Washington Streets
CITY TOWN
Easton
STATE
Pennsylvania 18042
1 REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS
TITLE
Historic American Buildings Survey
DATE
1969
.Xfederal
—STATE
—COUNTY LOCAL
DEPOSITORY FOR
SURVEY RECORDS
Library of Congress
CITY TOWN
Washington
STATF
DC
DESCRIPTION
CONDITION
^excellent
J£good
_FAIR
..deteriorated
Bruins
_unexposed
CHECK ONE
unaltered
Xaltered
CHECK ONE
X.ORIGINAL SITE
_MOVED DATE-
DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE
Slateford Farm consists of three main historic structures located in a central farmstead
which date from the early 1800s - cabin ca. 1800-1810, springhouse 1827, and main house
1833. Several other outbuildings at the site date from the late 1800s and the 1900s.
1. CABIN
Samuel Pipher's house, now called the Slateford Cabin, is a small frame structure which
appears to have been pre-cut and pre-fit. The walls, posts, studs, joists, beams, corner
braces, plates, and roof rafters were numbered and then assembled. Hand-whittled pins
hold the mortise and tenon joints together. The use of both hand-wrought rosehead nails
and early cut nails dates the structure to the early 1800s. The cabin's original appear-
ance included a hood over the entrance, wide beaded-board lap siding, a winding stair to
the garret and a stone fireplace which included an outside masonry oven. The original
chimney may have projected through the roof and the fireplace's inner brick hearth was
level with the outer hearth. The roof was probably made of dressed wood shakes.
Major renovation to the cabin occurred after the farm left Pipher hands in 1868. Owner
John A. Morison created two rooms on both floors through use of partitions, plastered
walls and ceilings, put in a new entrance door, put on a slate roof and placed exterior
siding on the structure. Further major renovations occurred post-1924 when owner Charles
Munsch added concrete to the entrance, exposed chimney, cellar floor and door, cellar
steps, roof ridge covers, casement windows in the basement and slabbing on the exterior
siding. The addition of the exterior siding is the basis for the house being called a
"log cabin" even though it is not. Munsch and his family changed the cabin's interior
by adding a fibre board paneling system with wallpaper, and a fake chair rail with painted
graining to simulate a paneled wainscot in the bedroom. In 1979 the National Park Service
rehabilitated the cabin and reversed many of the Munsch changes. The work included: roof
repairs, repointing of stone chimney and foundation walls, rebuilding of brick chimney,
removal of imitation log siding, repair of entrance hood, replacement of sills, studs,
doors and windows, removal of concrete bathroom and entrance slabs, and drainage grading.
2. SPRINGHOUSE
After Samuel Pipher's death in 1812 his property was divided between three children, and
son Peter inherited the central section of the farm with the cabin. In 1827 Peter built
a stone springhouse near the cabin, complete with datestone in the north gable. The two
room springhouse is located downhill from the spring source and the water was piped into
water troughs inside the structure. The upper roof structure was probably replaced late
in the nineteenth century.
3. MAIN HOUSE
Peter Pipher also built the Slateford Farm main house and placed his initials and date
over the front entrance - "P18...33P." The house consists of two floors,, cellar and
garret. It is built of heavy mortise and tenon framing with heavy vertical studs. Two
large and formally spaced rooms exist on each side of a central hallway and the interior
decorative millwork was probably done by a professional carpenter. Renovations occurred
Form No 1^ 300a
(Hev 10 741
I Ml LI) SI All S 1)1 1' \K1 Ml M Ol I ML IMl.RIOK
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM
FOR NPSUSE ONLY
RECEIVED
DATE ENTERED
CONTINUATION SHEET 1 ITEM NUMBER 7 PAGE 1
after 1868, including the addition of an exterior door through the north wall of the
northwest parlor, a slate roof, and a door into the northwest bedchamber, and the remc
of the kitchen wing on the second floor. Interior changes included the addition of la
nineteenth century high wainscot paneling and a new front door.
The exterior was changed drastically with the twentieth century addition of a, cement
buff-colored stucco and a wood and concrete front porch. The two floors of the main
house are interpreted by the National Park Service as living quarters. The kitchen,
dining room, parlor, living room, and a bedroom are on the first floor while bedrooms
occupy the second floor. Period furnishings date to the late nineteenth century.
4. OTHER STRUCTURES
HISTORIC, CONTRIBUTING
A. Old Barn Site - Reference to the barn was made in 1868 when Samuel and Elizabeth
Pipher sold the farm to the New York and Delaware River Slate Company. Reference was
also made to a granary being somewhere on the property. A concrete roof was placed
over the remnant stone walls by Charles M. Munsch, who then used the structure as a
garage. He used salvaged iron rails, possibly from a nearby quarry, to support the
concrete roof.
B. Quarry - The New York and Delaware River Slate Company opened and operated this
quarry from 1868-1873. Subsequent farm owner John A. Morison paid taxes on the quarry
until 1879. Another smaller quarry/pond is on the property. It is shallowly flooded
over a sediment fill and was dammed for a local water supply. Its history is not knov
C. Woodshed - This structure was built in the late nineteenth century possibly by
John A. Morison
D. Lime Kiln - Remnants of a stone lime kiln are located in the woods behind the main
house. It is probable that the kiln dates to the Pipher family occupancy, and may ha\>
been used as late as the Munsch ownership.
E. Stone Rows - Extensive stone pile rows mark partial boundaries of the Peter Pipher
farm, and probably date to that period. The rows also delineate boundaries of fields.
F. Fields - The exact location of all the fields utilized by the Piphers and subseque
Slateford Farm owners is not known, but the stone rows do mark several boundaries.
Photographs taken during the Munsch occupancy of the farm reveal that many of these
fields located between the main farm house and the Cyr farmstead were open and farmed.
G. Entrance Road to the Farm Core Area - This gravel road, approaching the main farm
house from the southeast, is probably the historic entrance to the farm. The Piphers
may have used it to reach a wagon road located next the the Delaware River.
rm No Ifl 300a
ev 10 741
UNITLDSTAILSDl PARTMl.M 01 I III IMI RIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM
FOR NPS USE ONLY
RECEIVED
DATE ENTERED
CONTINUATION SHEET 2 ITEM NUMBER J PAGE 2
NONCONTRIBUTING, NONHISTORIC
H. Double Mining Cart and Rails - This iron and wood cart was brought onto the
property by National Park Service staff, as were the iron rails. The cart is rapidly
deteriorating, being openly exposed to the weather. The rails are strewn along a path
to the north of the slate shanty.
I. Slate shanty - This structure was brought onto the property by the National Park
Service some time in the 1970s.
J. Ice House - Only the foundations exist for this wood frame structures, built by
Charles M. Munsch sometime after 1924. The ice house had a gable roof and the walls
were covered with horizontal slabbing with vertical slabs in each corner and in the
gable ends.
K. Outhouse - This structure was brought onto the property by the National Park Service
some time in the 1970s. The location of the historic outhouse is not known.
L. Cyr Farmstead - Charles M. Munsch built the farmhouse, which became the home of the
Louis and Lottie Cyr family who tenant farmed Slateford Farm. The farmstead includes
the main house, storage shed, chicken coops, small framed storage buildings, corn cribs,
barn and garage. The Cyr house has no architectural significance.
M. Kiefaber House - This house was built ca. 1925 by Fred W. Kiefaber. There are no
outbuildings and the house has no architectural or historical significance.
N. Corral - This structure, located in front of the main house and extending to the
garage, was built by the Youth Conservation Corps in 1974-1975.
0. National Park Service Road - This road was built in 1970.
P. Tower Foundations- Four footings of concrete are all that remain of this structure,
which perhaps was a radio tower.
Q. Slate Walks - Remnants of slate walk are located behind the main house.
R. Tennis Courts - Charles M. Munsch built tennis courts behind the main house. Their
exact location is not known and no visible remnants exist.
S. Apple Orchard - An apple orchard was mentioned in Samuel Pipher's 1812 will, but
its location is not known.
T. Slate and Stone Benches - Two benches are located underneath the tree next to the
main house. Their origin is not known.
Form No 10 300a
IRev 10 74)
UNITtDSTATtSDbPARlMtNTOh THL INThRIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM
FOR NPS USE ONLY
RECEIVED
DATE ENTERED
CONTINUATION SHEET 3 ITEM NUMBER 8 PAGE
PROPERTY HISTORY
The property now known as Slateford Farm was obtained from the Delaware Indians who
roamed and hunted in the area, by Richard and Thomas Penn (the sons of William Penn)
in the infamous Walking Purchase of 1737. Nicholas Scull, Pennsylvania's surveyor-
general, bought the 391-1/4 acre tract from the Penns in 1753, paid for the land survey
and sold the property the next year to Amos Strettell, a wealthy Philadelphia Quaker
merchant. Both Scull and Strettell were prominent members of provincial society.
Scull, as surveyor-general, laid out the town of Easton, the county seat of Northampto
County, established in 1750. Strettell helped create the first fire insurance company
in America and served in the Pennsylvania House of Assembly. Both men probably held
the property south of Blue Mountain and next to the Delaware River for speculative
purposes.
Amos Strettell left the property at his death in 1780 to his two daughters Ann and
Frances, who were married to two brothers, Cadwalader and Benjamin Morris. The Morris
brothers were Philadelphia merchants engaged in the West Indies trade. Cadwalader
helped establish the Bank of Pennsylvania in 1780 and the Bank of North America in
1781. He was a delegate to Congress in 1783 and for a few years operated the Hopewell
Furnace on French Creek, Union Township, in Berks County (now the Hopewell Village
National Historic Site). Benjamin Morris was an owner of the Hopewell Furnace along
with his brother, and he also served as an associate judge of the Court of Common
Pleas of Berks County.
In 1790 the four Morrises sold the 391-1/4 acre tract in Northampton County to Samuel
Pipher, who had lived in the area with his wife Christina and children at least since
the 1760s. It is probable that some buildings and cleared fields existed on the prop-
erty when Samuel Pipher bought it. He built the extant cabin ca. 1800-1810 and at his
death in 1812 three of Samuel and Christina's children — Mary Kocher, Peter and Frederi
inherited the three sections of the farm. In his will, dated 1812, Samuel called the
cabin "the new house" on "the old place," and made arrangements for his wife Christina
to live there after his death. "The old place" may refer to a homestead which might
have been built by the property's owners prior to 1790. No evidence of this homestead
has been found.
Peter and his wife Elizabeth raised their family and farmed the central section of the
property, the Slateford Farm. Peter built the springhouse in 1827 and the main house
in 1833. The tract, totaling 199 acres 109 perches, was sold to Peter and Elizabeth's
son Samuel in 1841. Samuel and his wife Elizabeth raised their family and farmed the
property until 1868. Why they sold the farm is not known, but the Pipher s sold 181
acres 112 perches, including the farmstead, to the New York and Delaware River Slate
Company, composed of New York and New Jersey businessmen.
Dim No 10 300«
lev 10 74)
UNITtD STALLS DtPARlMLNT Oh THt IMLRIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM
FOR NPS USE ONLY
RECEIVED
DATE ENTERED
CONTINUATION SHEET
ITEM NUMBER 8
PAGE
Emphasis then changed from agriculture to slate quarrying. Local slating had occurred
since the early 1800s and Northampton County was known for the quality and quantity of
its slate. The New York and Delaware River Slate Company opened and operated a quarry
on the property from 1868 until 1873, when internal dissension dissolved the organiza-
tion. The acreage was sold at a sheriff's sale to New Yorker John A. Morison.
Quarrying continued until 1880 and possibly later on the property. Tenant farmers
tilled the soil for some of the years of successive absentee ownership. New Jerseyan
Edwin G. Reynolds purchased the property in 1913 and possibly rented out the land.
New Yorker Charles M. Munsch was an active owner who bought the 181 acres 112 perches
in 1924 and made major renovations to the cabin, main house, springhouse, and barn
foundation ruins. Munsch hired a caretaker, Louis Cyr, in 1929 who tenant farmed the
property for Munsch, and for his daughter Alice who bought the farm in 1936. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers acquired 169.38 acres of the original Scull survey prop-
erty in September 1966. Another 4.52 acres was purchased in 1966 from Fred W. Keifaber
and this acreage was also part of the original Scull parcel. The farm's acreage now
totals 173.90. The National Park Service acquired title to the Corps land on
November 10, 1978. The historic boundaries of Slateford Farm are thus different
from its present boundaries^ See historical base maps 1-5.
FOR NPS USE ONLY
RECEIVED
DATE ENTERED
Form No 10 300a
(Rev 10-74)
UNlTbDSTATLS DtPARTMtNT Oh THt INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM
CONTINUATION SHEET 5 ITEM NUMBER 9 PAGE 1
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Classified Structure Field
Inventory Report," Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, "Cabin at Slateford
Farm," by John B. Dodd. 1976.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Classified Structure Field
Inventory Report," Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, "Slateford Farmhouse
by John B. Dodd. 1976.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Classified Structure Field
Inventory Report," Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, "Spring House at
Slateford Farm," by John B. Dodd. 1976.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Historic Resource Study,
Slateford Farm, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Pennsylvania," by
Sharon A. Brown. Draft, Denver, Colorado, 1985.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center.
"Historic Structures Report, Architecural Data, Slateford Farm, Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area, Pennsylvania" by Penelope Hartshorne Batcheler. Denver,
Colorado, November 1982.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Office of Archeology and
Historic Preservation. "Historic Structures Report, Part I, Architectural Data
Section on Historic Buildings," Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, by
Norman M. Souder. July 1967.
Copies available at park headquarters.
»m No 10 300«
•v 10 74)
UNITbDSTATbSDtPARTMLNTOh THh INThRIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM
FOR NPS USE ONLY
RECEIVED
DATE ENTERED
CONTINUATION SHEET 6 ITEM NUMBER 10 PAGE 1
The Sla^eford Farm complex, is located within the boundaries of Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area. The farm contains 173.90 acres more or less and is located
JenJjj^lil^s west west of Route 611 in Upper Mount Betbjfcl. T&wtt^hip, Northampton County,
Pennsylvania.
The legal description of the boundary:
A certain tract of land situated in the State of Pennsylvania, County of Northampton,
Township of Upper Mount Bethel, and more particularly bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a corner common to the lands of Alice M. Munsch and the lands of
Elizabeth M. Cassell and at a point in line of lands of Dorothy M. Roberts and being
a point in the centerline of Township Route Number 707 said point being the following
courses and distances: South 35° 40' East 2720 feet, South 38° 28' East 187 feet,
from the beginning of the second or North 59° East 55 Perches line of lands as
described in a deed from Charles M. Munsch and Marie, his wife to Alice M. Munsch
dated May 5, 1936 and filed for record in Deed Book F67, Page 241 in the records of
Northampton County, Pennsylvania said point of beginning being further located North
61° 13' East, 2470 feet more or less from the intersection of the centerline of Township
Route Number 734 with the center of S] atef ord Creek; thence, from the said point of
beginning and with the lands of the said Cassell,
(1) North 38° 28' West 187 feet to a corner common to the lands of the said
Cassell and the lands of Marie Munsch, et al ; thence leaving the lands of the said
Cassell and with the lands of the said Marie Munsch, et al ,
(2) North 35° 40' West passing a corner common to the lands of the said Marie
Munsch, et aland the lands of William J. 0'Heir,et al at approximately 317 feet, in
all 2720 feet to a corner common to the lands of the said Alice M. Munsch and the
lands of the said 0'Heir, et al and to a point in the line of the lands of Philip P.
Morrissey, et ux; thence, leaving the lands of the said 0'Heir, et al and with the
lands of the said Morrissey, et ux, the following courses and distances:
(3) North 54° 15' East 907 feet
(4) North 47° 02' East 800 feet
(5) North 69° 49' East 1026 feet
(6) South 18° 47' East passing an unnamed drain at approximately 1670 feet in all
3535 feet to a point in the line of the lands of Madeline M. Siegel; thence, leaving
the lands of the said Morrissey, et ux, and with the lands of the said Siegel,
(7) South 52° 09' West 846 feet to a corner common to the lands of the said
Alice M. Munsch and the lands of the said Roberts and at a point in the centerline
of the said Township Route Number 707; thence, leaving the lands of the said Siegel
and the lands of the said Roberts and with the centerline of the said Township Route
Number 707 the following courses and distances:
(8) North 80° 53' West 215 feet
(9) North 86° 25' West 720 feet
(10) Due West 124 feet to the place of beginning, containing 173.90 acres more or
less; less and excepting from the above described tract the following tract of land.
Form No 10 300a
IRov 10 74)
UNITtDSTATbSDLPARTMLNTOh THh INTLRIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM
FOR NPS USE ONLY
RECEIVED
DATE ENTEREO
CONTINUATION SHEET
ITEM NUMBER
10
PAGE
TRACT: 120
OWNER: Fred W. Keifaber, et ux
ACRES: 4.52
The above described land after the aforesaid exception contains 169.38 acres
more or less.
The bearings used herein are referenced to the Pennsylvania State Rectangular Grid
System (North Zone) 1927 N A Datum.
The above described land is part of the same land as that described in a deed from
Charles M. Munsch and Marie, his wife to Alice M. Munsch dated May 5, 1936 and
filed for record January 27, 1937 in Deed Book F67, Page 241 in the records of
Northampton County, Pennsylvania.
D SIGNIFICANCE
PERIOD AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW
_ PREHISTORIC _ ARCHEOLOGY PREHISTORIC .. COMMUNITY PLANNING ^LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE .RELIGION
1400 1499 _ ARCHEOLOGY HISTORIC . CONSERVATION _ LAW _.SCIENCE
1500 1599 -xAGRlCULTURE _. ECONOMICS _LITERATURE ..SCULPTURE
.1600 1699 .^ARCHITECTURE _ EDUCATION _ MILITARY _ SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN
_ 1700 1799 _ ART ^ENGINEERING _MUSIC _THEATER
JC 1800 1899 -COMMERCE _ EXPLORATION SETTLEMENT _ PHILOSOPHY _ TRANSPORTATION
_ 1900 - COMMUNICATIONS ^INDUSTRY _ POLITICS GOVERNME NT _OTHER (SPEC'Cv*
.^INVENTION
SPECIFIC DATES 18QQ-1810, 1827, 1833 BUILDER-ARCHITECT ^^ Pipher, Peter Pipher
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Slateford Farm's significance lies in its over 200 years of ownership by both prominent
and common Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Jerseyans, 78 years of which was by the
Pipher family. The property's origins date to the land dealings of the original Penns,
and the land, as well as the farm structures, is of cultural and historic importance.
The farm is located downstream from the renowned Delaware Water Gap, and its scenic
beauty contributes to the farm's cultural value. The duality of the land's use, for
both agriculture and slate quarrying, is representative of the surrounding county
history. Slateford Farm's significance lies in its contribution to Pennsylvania's
agriculture; its slate quarrying activity, representative of the county; in its vernacu-
lar farm buildings, representative of the Delaware River valley; and in its ownership,
representative of a cross-section of Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Jerseyans —
farmers and businessmen.
Slateford Farm was valuable not only for its agricultural products but its slate products
as well. In 1868 the property was purchased by a slate company which opened and operated
a slate quarry on the farm for several years. Upper Mount Bethel Township and Northampton
County produced large amounts of quarried slate, and the quarry on Slateford Farm con-
tributed to this industry. The New York and Upper Delaware River Slate Company
operation was not a successful one, and the property was used once more for agriculture.
The company's effort was one of the early industrial quarrying operations in the county,
and is representative of the slate industry in the county. The quarry appears to be
undisturbed since its abandonment, and is accessible and interpretable.
The land destined to become Slateford Farm was owned by a series of prominent Philadel-
phians, starting in 1753, until purchased by a local resident farmer in 1790. The
property then remained in the same family hands for the next 78 years, passing from
father to son to grandson. All farmers, the Pipher family raised both crops and children
for three generations at the same homestead. The farm represents a central focus in the
lives of the people who were born and raised there.
The structures on the Slateford Farm property represent a fairly complete farmstead
which has remained intact since the 1830s. The main house, cabin, and springhouse have
been renovated in substantial ways, but still retain the flavor of an early nineteenth
century Pennsylvania farm. Renovations by subsequent owners after the Pipher builders
are the result of the continual use of these structures into the twentieth century.
The social and cultural histories of generations of farming families are represented
in the Slateford Farm homestead.
|MAJOR bibliographical references
See continuation sheet, page 5
IGEOGR APHICAL DATA
ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY 173.90
UTM REFERENCES
AL±£J Ulfi. q! Ti 7i d 14 ,5l3t2l6. 8. Ot bLLl8J Ul 8, 9l 5 12 fl 1 U,5hnl7. 4, J
ZONE EASTING NORTHING ZONE EASTING NORTHING
cllial L4J-81 q1 «■ ^» rl 1a ,sUi9l8, 3,_gJ Dliisl Ulfrshtifll Lishi^Upinl
VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
See continuation sheets, pages 6 and 7
LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES
STATE CODE COUNTY CODE
N/A N/A
STATE CODE COUNTY CODE
ua m
FORM PREPARED BY
NAME • TITLE
Dr. Sharon A. Brown, Historian
ORGANIZATION DATE
National Park Sprvirp, npnvpr Service flpnrpr Tung 1Q IQq^
STREET& NUMBER TELEPHONE
7^ Parfpf Sffper im-7^-8Q6B
CITY OR TOWN STATE
T.akpwnnd Colorado
CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
YES NO NONE
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER SIGNATURE
In compliance with Executive Order 1 1 593 I hereby nominate this property to the National Register certifying that the State
Historic Preservation Officer has been allowed 90 days in which to present the nomination to the State Review Board and to
evaluate its significance The evaluated level of significance is . National State Local
FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE
TITLE DATE
FDR NPS USE ONLY
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER
DATE
DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ATTEST DATE
KEEPER OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER
*. US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985—576-039/20008 REGION NO 8
. Date Due
u~h-i
1
i
i
PRINTED IN U.S.A.
CAT. NO 24 161
As the nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the
interior has basic responsibilities to protect and conserve our "and and
water energy and minerals, fish and wildlife, parks and recreation
arels and to ensure the wise use of all these resources. The
department" also has major responsibility for American Indian ^vat.on
communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S.
administration .
Publication services were provided by the graphics staff of the Denver
Service Center. NPS D-67, September 1985
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11